myamid
Nov 4, 08:05 AM
...guys, I was wondering...
Does BOOT CAMP already support DUAL-CORE under XP ?
Sorry for the ignorance, just bought me a new Macbook and going to install either PARALLELS or BOOT CAMP ( waiting for VMWARE... :p )
Thanks for feedback !=)
Yes, BootCamp uses the hardware natively, so that means dual-core support. As to whether you should use bootcamp or Parallels... Well I guess that ultimatly depends on what you need windows for... 3D games or REALLY CPU untensive App? Go for bootcamp. Otherwise, parallels does the trick nicely and doesn't require you to reboot (a BIG bonus for me...)
Does BOOT CAMP already support DUAL-CORE under XP ?
Sorry for the ignorance, just bought me a new Macbook and going to install either PARALLELS or BOOT CAMP ( waiting for VMWARE... :p )
Thanks for feedback !=)
Yes, BootCamp uses the hardware natively, so that means dual-core support. As to whether you should use bootcamp or Parallels... Well I guess that ultimatly depends on what you need windows for... 3D games or REALLY CPU untensive App? Go for bootcamp. Otherwise, parallels does the trick nicely and doesn't require you to reboot (a BIG bonus for me...)
imnotatfault
Aug 19, 06:46 AM
Can't an OS be simple to use anymore?
NO WAY! That would actually make sense.
NO WAY! That would actually make sense.
yidakee
Oct 23, 01:48 PM
The sordid truth of MS is that there are so many pain-in-the-butt issues that this following year they are seriously going to loose market to Apple and OSX.
updo hairstyle with long
Image bank of UPDO HAIRSTYLES
Updo Hairstyles For Long Hair
prom updos for long hair 2010.
prom updos for long hair
prom hairstyles updos for long
AJClayton
Apr 1, 06:12 AM
That is really horrible. I think it's so awful that I'm at a loss to find suitably cutting adjectives to describe just how dreadful it is. :eek:
MattMJB0188
May 4, 09:56 AM
because if apple is going to say a new iphone is coming, only a fool will buy the old one at full price
i bet a new is coming in June but apple doesn't want to see a sales drop off. anyone that asks me i tell them that expect a new one in June and don't buy the 4 since it's stone age tech by now
Yeah, it's 2010 hardware and people keep saying its revolutionary. Doesn't look that way at all anymore with dual core Android phones left and right.
i bet a new is coming in June but apple doesn't want to see a sales drop off. anyone that asks me i tell them that expect a new one in June and don't buy the 4 since it's stone age tech by now
Yeah, it's 2010 hardware and people keep saying its revolutionary. Doesn't look that way at all anymore with dual core Android phones left and right.
Apple OC
May 1, 11:19 PM
Oh man.
Al-qaeda quickly fell apart after the war on terror and became what is known as leaderless resistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance
This kind of movement has top leaders, but for the most part any actions taken by the collective "al-qaeda" (the term quickly became a brand name adopted by many small, loosely-if-connected-at-all cells) are carried out by cells with little if any intercell communication. In short, in this kind of movement, the leaders barely matter if at all. Its the idea that generates the actions, not the leaders.
Watch the news on this right now ... they are talking about how huge Bin Laden is in Al-Queda ... he goes back to the beginning of it.
if anything Ayman al-Zawahiri is a distant #2 leader
Looks like Navy Seals played a big role in getting the job done ... cheers to them.
Al-qaeda quickly fell apart after the war on terror and became what is known as leaderless resistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance
This kind of movement has top leaders, but for the most part any actions taken by the collective "al-qaeda" (the term quickly became a brand name adopted by many small, loosely-if-connected-at-all cells) are carried out by cells with little if any intercell communication. In short, in this kind of movement, the leaders barely matter if at all. Its the idea that generates the actions, not the leaders.
Watch the news on this right now ... they are talking about how huge Bin Laden is in Al-Queda ... he goes back to the beginning of it.
if anything Ayman al-Zawahiri is a distant #2 leader
Looks like Navy Seals played a big role in getting the job done ... cheers to them.
arjaosx
Apr 13, 03:19 PM
Pls look at post #94. Numbers speak for themselves and they tell me Apple won't get into TV business. Who's going to pay 2k every 2 - 3 years for a TV?
You might have inside sources at Apple, because you seem to be too sure that it will cost 2K and would only last for 2 - 3 years.
I remember people not wanting an iPad when the rumors broke out. Same thing.
You might have inside sources at Apple, because you seem to be too sure that it will cost 2K and would only last for 2 - 3 years.
I remember people not wanting an iPad when the rumors broke out. Same thing.
*LTD*
Apr 22, 05:00 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
nah there r better looking HTC out there by now, the new one they got (forgot its name) with the slide out keyboard is pure sex ^^
If it has a slide-out keyboard it's already fail.
nah there r better looking HTC out there by now, the new one they got (forgot its name) with the slide out keyboard is pure sex ^^
If it has a slide-out keyboard it's already fail.
Intell
Apr 27, 10:31 AM
After the uneventful night in the brig, chrmjenkins awoke to a new sight. What he saw was NathanMuir frozen in banana flavored Popsicle. After thinking about whether he should free him, he saw appleguy321 sulking in the corner. "Why are you so down and sad?" he asked.
"Their going to eject us out into space." appleguy123 replied.
"Do you want to help free NathanMuir?"
"You don't want to lick that. It isn't a Popsicle." appleguy312 said with a weak smile. chrmjenkins, now repulsed by the encapsulated NathanMuir, started to panic. "Must not panic, must not panic." he muttered.
"Here read this, it'll calm you down." said appleguy312 as he handed him an Intell Classmate sized thing with glowing writing on the side. chrmjenkins opened it and was presented with an animated picture of a common bending robot drinking tea. "Is this all it does?"
"No, it usually does more. But I think it needs its fuel cell replaced. I put my last one in my lightvibrator." Then a loud grinding noise sounded out across the rooms walls. A wide hole opened in the ceiling and little compressed cubes of garbage dropped in. Then just as suddenly as the ceiling opened, the floor dissolved into empty space. Everyone and everything in the room instantly got flung into space.
Now the proper thing for one to do in outer space would be to exhale to prevent one's lungs from exploding one's chest. NathanMuri, unable to do so, exploded in to a horrid scene. appluguy123 and chrmjenkins held on to each other in their last moments of life. The chance of getting picked up in the vastness of space is roughly 42 to the power of 01189998819991197253, which just so happens to be a random number made up off the top of Graham Linehan's mind.
Lucky for the protagonists in this story, a ship materialized out of nowhere right around them and a few garbage cubes.
Black Updo Hairstyles
2011 Long hairstyles with
Bridal hairstyles, updos
High Updo Hairstyle Of Kristen
New Long Hairstyles 2011: Updo
long hairstyles updos
Long Hairstyles Updos.
prom hairstyles updos with
"Their going to eject us out into space." appleguy123 replied.
"Do you want to help free NathanMuir?"
"You don't want to lick that. It isn't a Popsicle." appleguy312 said with a weak smile. chrmjenkins, now repulsed by the encapsulated NathanMuir, started to panic. "Must not panic, must not panic." he muttered.
"Here read this, it'll calm you down." said appleguy312 as he handed him an Intell Classmate sized thing with glowing writing on the side. chrmjenkins opened it and was presented with an animated picture of a common bending robot drinking tea. "Is this all it does?"
"No, it usually does more. But I think it needs its fuel cell replaced. I put my last one in my lightvibrator." Then a loud grinding noise sounded out across the rooms walls. A wide hole opened in the ceiling and little compressed cubes of garbage dropped in. Then just as suddenly as the ceiling opened, the floor dissolved into empty space. Everyone and everything in the room instantly got flung into space.
Now the proper thing for one to do in outer space would be to exhale to prevent one's lungs from exploding one's chest. NathanMuri, unable to do so, exploded in to a horrid scene. appluguy123 and chrmjenkins held on to each other in their last moments of life. The chance of getting picked up in the vastness of space is roughly 42 to the power of 01189998819991197253, which just so happens to be a random number made up off the top of Graham Linehan's mind.
Lucky for the protagonists in this story, a ship materialized out of nowhere right around them and a few garbage cubes.
Eidorian
Jul 24, 02:46 PM
*head explodes*
'bout time!
'bout time!
commander.data
May 3, 08:12 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors#.22Sandy_Bridge.22_.2832_nm.29_2
The 2.5GHz and 2.7GHz models look to be Low-Voltage 65W Core i5, which is why Apple is able to fit quad cores in the 21.5" enclosure. But does that actually mean the 3.1GHz Core i5 in the 27" is actually cheaper than the slower 2.7GHz Core i5 in the 27"? Intel doesn't sell a 2.7GHz standard voltage Core i5 unless its a custom model or Apple is underclocking the 2.8GHz Core i5, which seems like an unnecessary waste of free clock speed room.
The 2.5GHz and 2.7GHz models look to be Low-Voltage 65W Core i5, which is why Apple is able to fit quad cores in the 21.5" enclosure. But does that actually mean the 3.1GHz Core i5 in the 27" is actually cheaper than the slower 2.7GHz Core i5 in the 27"? Intel doesn't sell a 2.7GHz standard voltage Core i5 unless its a custom model or Apple is underclocking the 2.8GHz Core i5, which seems like an unnecessary waste of free clock speed room.
digitalnicotine
Jan 31, 01:47 AM
@neko girl
Um... what? I mean what did you purchase? (looks cool) :)
Um... what? I mean what did you purchase? (looks cool) :)
twoodcc
Nov 29, 08:28 PM
I have my fingers crossed! one of them is connected to the power supply for another machine :eek: it seems to be working for now but I will have to get some bigger psu's soon. The one you are getting looks like a good deal.
oh ok. yeah i've heard of people doing that though. yeah, better get a bigger psu soon though
oh ok. yeah i've heard of people doing that though. yeah, better get a bigger psu soon though
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
Stella
Jul 28, 10:38 AM
How can you possibly make that statement - that no one is switching to Zune ( or will switch to )
Zune isn't out yet!!!
There is no incentive to go to a Zune. Same DRM, same features. The people who hate the iPod and buy Creative aren't switching to Zune. They don't want to be locked into DRM. So unless microsoft really does something innovative it is just another player in a sea of non-iPods.
EDIT: I mean same DRM in the sense that the download are locked by DRM, not exactly the same type.
Zune isn't out yet!!!
There is no incentive to go to a Zune. Same DRM, same features. The people who hate the iPod and buy Creative aren't switching to Zune. They don't want to be locked into DRM. So unless microsoft really does something innovative it is just another player in a sea of non-iPods.
EDIT: I mean same DRM in the sense that the download are locked by DRM, not exactly the same type.
ghostlines
Apr 1, 09:06 AM
C'mon Apple keep it professional and unified. Man they should stick to working on the user experience and internals, not goofy color schemes and such. OS X already looks cool they don't need to make it look kiddy now!:eek:
lordonuthin
Oct 26, 06:19 PM
27 mins? On the 2.26 octo?
Getting 43 mins on my 3ghz octo from 2007...
I thought it seemed pretty good.
Long Hairstyles , Sleek
easy updo hairstyles for long
Getting 43 mins on my 3ghz octo from 2007...
I thought it seemed pretty good.
countach
Oct 23, 05:29 PM
Oh I found it: CrossOver Mac. Not sure if it will support Vista though.
Seeing as Crossover doesn't require MS-Windows, it doesn't "support" any version thereof. It emulates Windows APIs.
Seeing as Crossover doesn't require MS-Windows, it doesn't "support" any version thereof. It emulates Windows APIs.
yg17
Mar 8, 08:47 AM
Now, when they're talking of a replacement, are they thinking of killing Charlie's character off and Rob Lowe (or whomever) would be some new character that comes out of nowhere, it would they keep Charlie's character, swap actors, and act as if nothing happened?
I personally think they're going to kill Charlie off, Alan gets the house in the will, and then Judith kicks Herb out and Herb moves in with Alan. Herb and Judith's marriage has been rocky, I think the writers did that so they'd have a plan when Charlie Sheen inevitably went off the wagon.
I personally think they're going to kill Charlie off, Alan gets the house in the will, and then Judith kicks Herb out and Herb moves in with Alan. Herb and Judith's marriage has been rocky, I think the writers did that so they'd have a plan when Charlie Sheen inevitably went off the wagon.
rjboger
Jun 6, 08:31 AM
This is why a kids account should not have a credit card attached to it. Just by giftcards people.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 01:29 AM
wireless (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Wi-Max whatever)? I used to think that this was a cool thing to have in an iPod. an iPod with internet radio capability sounds like a really cool idea. I'm lukewarm about now.
I'm not. What would I like to see from Apple? What would my ideal iPod be like? Let's explore the possibilities.
Bluetooth-headphones. This would kick ass. No more wires that get tangled up. And it CAN be done!
Large touch-screen. No separate controls, the controls would be right in the display (like in the image that was linked before in this thread).
And before you say "but there would be fingerprints on the screen! And it wouldn't provide any tactile feedback!". Ah, but how about that "no-touch" controls that have been rumored? I have no idea that is it really possible, but what if? You could simply hover you finger 1cm from the screen and use the controls. No fingerprints. As to the tactile feedback.... Tactile feedback is used that you know where the controls are without actually looking at the screen. "No-touch" UI does not have this, because you aren't actually touching anything. So how do we make this work? Well, what if you could just put your finger close to the screen ANYWHERE on the screen. If you do circlular motion (like in current iPod) the device would scroll, adjust volume, and do the other things you can do on the current iPod. If you move your finger straigh up, it would be equivaltnof clicking "menu". Straight down would be play/pause and so forth.
As to WLAN and the like.... What if the new iPod could be tied to iChat? You could VOIP to/from the iPod. just turn on the wireless, and browse to the "buddy list" menu on your iPod, and you are all set. Hell, the iPod could have a camera as well! if they can put video-cameras on phones, is there any reason why iPod couldn't have one?
if we assume that the "no-touch" UI is possible, then nothing I have listed is impossible. iPod with those specs would be YEARS ahead of any other device on the market! It would absolutely embarrass all the other devices.
I'm not. What would I like to see from Apple? What would my ideal iPod be like? Let's explore the possibilities.
Bluetooth-headphones. This would kick ass. No more wires that get tangled up. And it CAN be done!
Large touch-screen. No separate controls, the controls would be right in the display (like in the image that was linked before in this thread).
And before you say "but there would be fingerprints on the screen! And it wouldn't provide any tactile feedback!". Ah, but how about that "no-touch" controls that have been rumored? I have no idea that is it really possible, but what if? You could simply hover you finger 1cm from the screen and use the controls. No fingerprints. As to the tactile feedback.... Tactile feedback is used that you know where the controls are without actually looking at the screen. "No-touch" UI does not have this, because you aren't actually touching anything. So how do we make this work? Well, what if you could just put your finger close to the screen ANYWHERE on the screen. If you do circlular motion (like in current iPod) the device would scroll, adjust volume, and do the other things you can do on the current iPod. If you move your finger straigh up, it would be equivaltnof clicking "menu". Straight down would be play/pause and so forth.
As to WLAN and the like.... What if the new iPod could be tied to iChat? You could VOIP to/from the iPod. just turn on the wireless, and browse to the "buddy list" menu on your iPod, and you are all set. Hell, the iPod could have a camera as well! if they can put video-cameras on phones, is there any reason why iPod couldn't have one?
if we assume that the "no-touch" UI is possible, then nothing I have listed is impossible. iPod with those specs would be YEARS ahead of any other device on the market! It would absolutely embarrass all the other devices.
Erwin-Br
Apr 26, 01:50 PM
No cloud for me.
Paying 20 bucks a year is not much, but I'm also paying 60 bucks a month for standard Internet access, and 30 bucks a month for my Phone's data+voice plan. To make matters worse Dutch telco's, one by one, are starting to impose data limits on their plans which means that if you go over the limit, they make you pay through the nose.
No, thanks.
Paying 20 bucks a year is not much, but I'm also paying 60 bucks a month for standard Internet access, and 30 bucks a month for my Phone's data+voice plan. To make matters worse Dutch telco's, one by one, are starting to impose data limits on their plans which means that if you go over the limit, they make you pay through the nose.
No, thanks.
biggerbearbrian
Oct 19, 09:03 AM
*sigh* How many times do we have to refute your assertions with facts before you stop repeating them?
To wit, the iPod is not Apple's "cash cow". By definition, if there is something that gains more revenue/profit than the iPod, then the iPod cannot be the cash cow. 58% of Apple's revenue still came from sales of Macs. Gross margins for both Macs and iPods has always been similar (hovering a bit below 30%), so the Mac also generates the majority of the profit for Apple.
As for Apple's innovative spirit lacking when it comes to the Macs, let's just point out that it Apple updated the iPod in October 2005 to the 5th generation, and we JUST got the 5.5th generation last month. Apple took a year to add slightly brighter screens, better battery life (only for video), and games. The nano just gained the anodized aluminum exterior -- wow, Apple's reaching back to the past for it's innovation now! And the shuffle got slimmed down and consolidated into one product. All this doesn't sound exactly like innovation to me. (Of course, Apple doesn't really need to innovate, since they're already selling iPods by the boatload.)
In contrast, Apple brought all of its Macs over to the Intel processor. The Mac Pro was dramatically higher value, what with double-wide graphics card slot, dual optical drives, 4 internal hard drive bays, etc., etc. All Macs (except for the Mac Pro) now have Front Row and a remote, which is a great feature. Built-in iSights have also migrated across the entire product line. The MacBook and MacBook Pro now have MagSafe -- a great innovation. Boot Camp is now supported on all new Macs. The Xserve has new features like lights-out management, redundant power supplies, etc. And we've seen some great things coming for Leopard, what with Time Machine and Spaces and iChat Theater and Core Animation and iCal Server, etc., etc., etc.
It seems to me that Apple is innovating more on the Macintosh side of things than they are with the iPod. What are they going to add next on the iPod -- wireless? *gasp*, so innovative!
Seriously, can we stop with this myth already? It's the same thing with all of Apple's "woes" with quality control (which was busted by the recent consumer reports articles where Apple has actually brought DOWN the number of new computers needing repair in their first year). It's something that's repeated ad nauseum by a few vocal people, when it's really not a problem at all. Same here: everybody gawks and writes about the iPod precisely because more people can afford it and more people can use it with whatever computer they have. So, obviously, you will hear more about the iPod.
Let's see if repeating myself again has any effect: the iPod is not Apple's cash cow!
Understood now?
OK, now fire away :rolleyes:
I think the argument can go either way. While iPod (which I love btw) is less than half Apple revenue ok. But if they were to just add the iPod line today, and have the amount of revenue they are reporting from it, the financial report would be "iPod has given us nearly a 100% increase in revenue".
So get some hershey's syrup, cause we got milk.
To wit, the iPod is not Apple's "cash cow". By definition, if there is something that gains more revenue/profit than the iPod, then the iPod cannot be the cash cow. 58% of Apple's revenue still came from sales of Macs. Gross margins for both Macs and iPods has always been similar (hovering a bit below 30%), so the Mac also generates the majority of the profit for Apple.
As for Apple's innovative spirit lacking when it comes to the Macs, let's just point out that it Apple updated the iPod in October 2005 to the 5th generation, and we JUST got the 5.5th generation last month. Apple took a year to add slightly brighter screens, better battery life (only for video), and games. The nano just gained the anodized aluminum exterior -- wow, Apple's reaching back to the past for it's innovation now! And the shuffle got slimmed down and consolidated into one product. All this doesn't sound exactly like innovation to me. (Of course, Apple doesn't really need to innovate, since they're already selling iPods by the boatload.)
In contrast, Apple brought all of its Macs over to the Intel processor. The Mac Pro was dramatically higher value, what with double-wide graphics card slot, dual optical drives, 4 internal hard drive bays, etc., etc. All Macs (except for the Mac Pro) now have Front Row and a remote, which is a great feature. Built-in iSights have also migrated across the entire product line. The MacBook and MacBook Pro now have MagSafe -- a great innovation. Boot Camp is now supported on all new Macs. The Xserve has new features like lights-out management, redundant power supplies, etc. And we've seen some great things coming for Leopard, what with Time Machine and Spaces and iChat Theater and Core Animation and iCal Server, etc., etc., etc.
It seems to me that Apple is innovating more on the Macintosh side of things than they are with the iPod. What are they going to add next on the iPod -- wireless? *gasp*, so innovative!
Seriously, can we stop with this myth already? It's the same thing with all of Apple's "woes" with quality control (which was busted by the recent consumer reports articles where Apple has actually brought DOWN the number of new computers needing repair in their first year). It's something that's repeated ad nauseum by a few vocal people, when it's really not a problem at all. Same here: everybody gawks and writes about the iPod precisely because more people can afford it and more people can use it with whatever computer they have. So, obviously, you will hear more about the iPod.
Let's see if repeating myself again has any effect: the iPod is not Apple's cash cow!
Understood now?
OK, now fire away :rolleyes:
I think the argument can go either way. While iPod (which I love btw) is less than half Apple revenue ok. But if they were to just add the iPod line today, and have the amount of revenue they are reporting from it, the financial report would be "iPod has given us nearly a 100% increase in revenue".
So get some hershey's syrup, cause we got milk.
wordoflife
Apr 13, 10:41 PM
http://assets.gearlive.com/blogimages/gallery/white-black-iphone-4/white-black-iphone-4-002_medium.jpg
Wow, white looks on point. I think my next iPhone might be white.
And i'm still deciding whether I want to jump from the 3GS at this time or not. I mean, it still works.
Wow, white looks on point. I think my next iPhone might be white.
And i'm still deciding whether I want to jump from the 3GS at this time or not. I mean, it still works.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment