Thanatoast
Jul 24, 03:22 PM
Son of a gun. I just bought a Apple (read:expensive) wireless mouse last week. I wonder if I still have the box...
Busy season, this WWDC.
Busy season, this WWDC.
shawnce
Dec 1, 02:26 PM
Maybe it's about time Apple closed the Mac OS kernel? Umm why?
Eldiablojoe
Apr 29, 04:11 PM
You're just trying to quiet the only voice that figured you out. Getting rid of me smooths your sail all the way to a WW victory.
blackburn
Apr 14, 08:36 AM
iHackintosh:D
more...
playaj82
Jul 26, 01:20 PM
Has anybody thought these might all just be preventative filings?
Apple is smart to file a patent on something that might be "similar" to technology they have developed just to maintain their exclusivity of the technology.
Apple might be filing this just so they can say, haha, Microsoft, you can't produce this because we invented it first....and then Apple moves on to the next big thing without ever producing a product based on the patent.
As far as the trademark stuff goes, it is the same logic. Apple needs to protect as many derivations of the "*Pod" mark in order to make their Pod trademarks even stronger. Apple will probably never produce something with the "doPod" trademark, but any other company thinking about naming their product the "doPod" will think twice before getting into a legal battle with Apple, who has one of the most recognized digital entertainment trademarks in the world.
You can show me Patent and Trademark filings all day long and I will simply reply with a "prove it"
Apple is smart to file a patent on something that might be "similar" to technology they have developed just to maintain their exclusivity of the technology.
Apple might be filing this just so they can say, haha, Microsoft, you can't produce this because we invented it first....and then Apple moves on to the next big thing without ever producing a product based on the patent.
As far as the trademark stuff goes, it is the same logic. Apple needs to protect as many derivations of the "*Pod" mark in order to make their Pod trademarks even stronger. Apple will probably never produce something with the "doPod" trademark, but any other company thinking about naming their product the "doPod" will think twice before getting into a legal battle with Apple, who has one of the most recognized digital entertainment trademarks in the world.
You can show me Patent and Trademark filings all day long and I will simply reply with a "prove it"
cvaldes
Apr 22, 10:47 AM
Many get garbage 3G speeds on AT&T in many areas anyway, so what's the point of having a 4G iPhone that GSM provider (insert AT&T) in the US can't even support on a mass basis?
Theoretically, the 4G LTE iPhone would work great in countries not named the United States of America.
59% of Apple's revenue comes from international markets.
Theoretically, the 4G LTE iPhone would work great in countries not named the United States of America.
59% of Apple's revenue comes from international markets.
more...
Stanjara
Apr 15, 01:26 PM
I have installed 4.3.2 on 3gs and it is...nice...i mean the home screen animations are smoother.... don't have any issues with the battery.....everything is....nice
4.3 was terrible...home screen icons and animations were jerky...some bugs with safari...e to 3g was long and sometimes resulting in network lost
4.3.1 was a little better....no bugs just slow animations
4.3.2 is...is...nice
P.s. if you have battery issues, it is not because of ios update..it is from your settings because when you restore to your phone the settings are also restored...so the problem remains...try to kill ping with restrictions...also try to recreate your email accounts...push to off...notifications also off...
Also try ipod settings eq off...and i have specified my carrier...its not automatic
4.3 was terrible...home screen icons and animations were jerky...some bugs with safari...e to 3g was long and sometimes resulting in network lost
4.3.1 was a little better....no bugs just slow animations
4.3.2 is...is...nice
P.s. if you have battery issues, it is not because of ios update..it is from your settings because when you restore to your phone the settings are also restored...so the problem remains...try to kill ping with restrictions...also try to recreate your email accounts...push to off...notifications also off...
Also try ipod settings eq off...and i have specified my carrier...its not automatic
LieutenantLefse
Jul 24, 04:57 PM
I suppose I could use a standard AA battery recharger. I haven't seen one in use since about 10 years ago and they never used to be very good...
The current NiMH rechargeables are much, much better than the old NiCds; they last longer and allow more recharge cycles. They still don't last as long per cycle as an alkaline, but for battery-hungry gadgets NiMH is great.
The current NiMH rechargeables are much, much better than the old NiCds; they last longer and allow more recharge cycles. They still don't last as long per cycle as an alkaline, but for battery-hungry gadgets NiMH is great.
more...
MacVault
Oct 24, 08:08 AM
Here comes the moaning.......... ;)
Yea... WHERE THE [censored] ARE THE MACBOOKS?! I want a Core 2 Duo MacBook, not MacBook Pro :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Yea... WHERE THE [censored] ARE THE MACBOOKS?! I want a Core 2 Duo MacBook, not MacBook Pro :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
cal6n
Apr 14, 07:24 AM
Well, it is almost time for a new iMac to be released, isn't it? (Or a Mac Mini, Mac Pro, or MacBook for that sake)
iX... At first you could think about the Roman Number 9. But as you all know, in the upper part of X, you can also find the Roman number V. So that makes 14 then. (IX + V)
Now, the iMac shipped in 1998, while now it's 2011. 13 years of difference. Almost fourteen. Coincidence? I think not. Maybe that's a hint from Apple?
Then you got Mac, with a capital M, and a lowercase a and c. In M you can find I, V, and I, which together make (IV + I) 5. In a you can find c and I, which totals in 11 (C+I). Then you got the c, which of course, just translates in 10.
5 + 11 + 10 equals 26. As much as all letters in the Roman (aka Latin) alphabet.
Which leads us to believe that we have not to count the Roman numbers, but just the Roman letters.
M is the 13th letter of the alphabet.
A is the first letter of the alphabet.
C is the 3rd letter of the alphabet.
TOTAL: 17.
Now we all know Apple's marketing. And you know that's a hint from the name in the title: MarketingName. Big words mean more to Apple than big numbers. "This computer is fantastic" is more advertised than "This computer has 8 GB of RAM". So that can conclude that we'll have to substract the Roman numbers from the Roman letters.
26 - 17 = 9. Nine indeed. Got it?
9 was also the number iX, which we started with. This leads us to believe we have to be on the right track.
Now what are those dots in between the words?
Anyone else can further elaborate this? Thanks for your help.
Edit: I forgot the lower case i in iX. I used it as an uppercase letter. So maybe that only counts as 0.5 instead? So that equals 13.5 with the V included. That only gives Apple 6 months to finish the new unknown thing!
You might need to rethink this, although I'm sure you'll be able to come up with something...
"C" is 100 in Roman numerals, not 10.
iX... At first you could think about the Roman Number 9. But as you all know, in the upper part of X, you can also find the Roman number V. So that makes 14 then. (IX + V)
Now, the iMac shipped in 1998, while now it's 2011. 13 years of difference. Almost fourteen. Coincidence? I think not. Maybe that's a hint from Apple?
Then you got Mac, with a capital M, and a lowercase a and c. In M you can find I, V, and I, which together make (IV + I) 5. In a you can find c and I, which totals in 11 (C+I). Then you got the c, which of course, just translates in 10.
5 + 11 + 10 equals 26. As much as all letters in the Roman (aka Latin) alphabet.
Which leads us to believe that we have not to count the Roman numbers, but just the Roman letters.
M is the 13th letter of the alphabet.
A is the first letter of the alphabet.
C is the 3rd letter of the alphabet.
TOTAL: 17.
Now we all know Apple's marketing. And you know that's a hint from the name in the title: MarketingName. Big words mean more to Apple than big numbers. "This computer is fantastic" is more advertised than "This computer has 8 GB of RAM". So that can conclude that we'll have to substract the Roman numbers from the Roman letters.
26 - 17 = 9. Nine indeed. Got it?
9 was also the number iX, which we started with. This leads us to believe we have to be on the right track.
Now what are those dots in between the words?
Anyone else can further elaborate this? Thanks for your help.
Edit: I forgot the lower case i in iX. I used it as an uppercase letter. So maybe that only counts as 0.5 instead? So that equals 13.5 with the V included. That only gives Apple 6 months to finish the new unknown thing!
You might need to rethink this, although I'm sure you'll be able to come up with something...
"C" is 100 in Roman numerals, not 10.
more...
Luba
Sep 30, 09:41 PM
Is Verizon and the competition any better? I don't think so, and that's why AT&T can get away with not investing in additional towers.
AT&T is collecting our money, but not spending the money needed to provide the service we are paying for. I suppose it's great on paper for them and their bottom line, but at some point will this catch up with them?? We are at least a generation behind the rest of the world but AT&T can get away with it because the rest of the competition is doing the same.
I wonder what is pushing the other countries into 4G, and at this rate we may soon be 2 generations behind. A similar situation exists with internet broadband where the rest of the world gets faster internet than us. :(
AT&T is collecting our money, but not spending the money needed to provide the service we are paying for. I suppose it's great on paper for them and their bottom line, but at some point will this catch up with them?? We are at least a generation behind the rest of the world but AT&T can get away with it because the rest of the competition is doing the same.
I wonder what is pushing the other countries into 4G, and at this rate we may soon be 2 generations behind. A similar situation exists with internet broadband where the rest of the world gets faster internet than us. :(
Patdt13
Jan 29, 11:52 AM
Pre-ordered 127 Hours off Amazon
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51qbg0thJEL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Along with the soundtrack
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41jftNxEctL._SL500_AA280_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51qbg0thJEL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Along with the soundtrack
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41jftNxEctL._SL500_AA280_.jpg
more...
FloatingBones
Nov 25, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
kiriad
Jul 25, 12:55 AM
I have a MX-1000, but I'm thinking of buying this BT Mighty Mouse. I agree that MX-1000 is a pretty good mouse, and I don't have much complaint in terms of its functionalities. However, unlike others here, I hate that cradle. I bought a wireless mouse because I didn't like clutters. But this thing has TWO cords dangling on the back, and it takes up valuable desktop space. I find this actually bothers me more than the wire of a wired mouse sometimes.
I know for others those two more wires on the back and small desktop space might be nothing to complain about. But, to me, it's really annoying. And with my new MBP, it's simply not an option to carry that cardle around. Right now I use an RF receiver from another Logitech mouse I have, and use the cradle only for recharge. But even that small receiver is annoying when you have to move around, since my MBP won't fit into sleeve with that thing attached.
So, a BT mouse with standard battery is a perfect fit to me. I don't mind lifting index finger for right click much, since I'm already doing that most of the time any way, although I wish the mouse surface were pressure sensitive rather than simply touch sensitive.
I know for others those two more wires on the back and small desktop space might be nothing to complain about. But, to me, it's really annoying. And with my new MBP, it's simply not an option to carry that cardle around. Right now I use an RF receiver from another Logitech mouse I have, and use the cradle only for recharge. But even that small receiver is annoying when you have to move around, since my MBP won't fit into sleeve with that thing attached.
So, a BT mouse with standard battery is a perfect fit to me. I don't mind lifting index finger for right click much, since I'm already doing that most of the time any way, although I wish the mouse surface were pressure sensitive rather than simply touch sensitive.
more...
Iconoclysm
Apr 21, 11:44 PM
Let me help you out, since you've got it wrong.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_(supply_chain)
I never said they weren't a vendor. Let me help you out...try reading the post.
What I was getting at, because a Vendor can provide anything from software to consultants to hardware to designs, is that it's important to note that Samsung doesn't design the parts. They just manufacture them.
And, let's be clear - this is the definition of Vendor:
ven�dor
�noun
1.
a person or agency that sells.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_(supply_chain)
I never said they weren't a vendor. Let me help you out...try reading the post.
What I was getting at, because a Vendor can provide anything from software to consultants to hardware to designs, is that it's important to note that Samsung doesn't design the parts. They just manufacture them.
And, let's be clear - this is the definition of Vendor:
ven�dor
�noun
1.
a person or agency that sells.
Stella
Jul 24, 03:59 PM
come on, Apple! what we're all really waiting for is a mouse with force-feedback. for all these games.
Logitech did that years ago with two range of mice.
Now, they are no where to be seen. They were a gimmic.
Logitech did that years ago with two range of mice.
Now, they are no where to be seen. They were a gimmic.
more...
SpaceKyd
Apr 14, 12:35 AM
Fail apple!! Faiiillllllll!
▄██████████████▄▐█▄▄▄▄█▌
██████▌▄▌▄▐▐▌███▌▀▀██▀▀
████▄█▌▄▌▄▐▐▌▀███▄▄█▌
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████▀
▄██████████████▄▐█▄▄▄▄█▌
██████▌▄▌▄▐▐▌███▌▀▀██▀▀
████▄█▌▄▌▄▐▐▌▀███▄▄█▌
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████▀
MacRumors
Apr 11, 01:03 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/11/thunderbolt-products-starting-to-roll-out-at-nab/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/11/135913-274945096_500.jpg
Arnold Palmer Drink
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/11/135913-274945096_500.jpg
theBB
Jul 21, 12:13 PM
I didn't buy my Mac to be popular and I don't particularly care that lots of people are (or are not) using them. It's just an irrelevant metric to me.
Neither did I, but more market share means more software developers and more apps. That's the only reason I care.
Neither did I, but more market share means more software developers and more apps. That's the only reason I care.
asleitz
Mar 31, 09:48 PM
Next the Pinto is going to make a come back with the wood trim
Slix
Apr 26, 12:01 PM
Ick. :rolleyes:
Why would I pay for that?
Why would I pay for that?
Carlanga
May 3, 11:37 PM
pfft, this should not be front page news, hell not even second page... just a bunch of hearsay from a CR that knows nothing about it and speculates BS.
ZoomZoomZoom
Aug 19, 08:48 AM
Well, at least with the new iChat features people MIGHT actually start using iChat instead of Adium. Maybe?
Oh yeah, forgot about iChat. :p The remote desktops feature is neat. But I'm guessing that it'll only work Mac-to-Mac? Can still put it to good use, but still - for going 10.4 to 10.5, I feel as if Leopard has its uses but is underwhelming in the end.
Oh yeah, forgot about iChat. :p The remote desktops feature is neat. But I'm guessing that it'll only work Mac-to-Mac? Can still put it to good use, but still - for going 10.4 to 10.5, I feel as if Leopard has its uses but is underwhelming in the end.
MarximusMG
Apr 13, 07:50 PM
Anyone actually planning on buying this? Especially with a refresh right around the corner?
Have you been reading the recent rumors regarding the next iPhone release? That's the whole point of releasing the white iPhone 4 now, IMO. It's tying people over until iPhone 5, which will almost definitely not see the light of day at WWDC.
Have you been reading the recent rumors regarding the next iPhone release? That's the whole point of releasing the white iPhone 4 now, IMO. It's tying people over until iPhone 5, which will almost definitely not see the light of day at WWDC.
No comments:
Post a Comment