rmwebs
Apr 26, 12:37 PM
I guess they could build it into iTunes in some fairly fluid way, but still.
Yay....more itunes bloat! They really need to ditch iTunes all together. It's turned into a piece of crap.
Yay....more itunes bloat! They really need to ditch iTunes all together. It's turned into a piece of crap.
emaja
Apr 26, 01:33 PM
I'll delete all the music that I've purchased via iTunes that will be available on the cloud, yes.
I wouldn't delete it. Local storage is so cheap that you'd be almost foolish to not have a local physical backup.
Personally, I wouldn't store my music in the cloud. I would back it up and stream it from the cloud, but it wouldn't be my only copy. Call me paranoid, but I like backups.
I wouldn't delete it. Local storage is so cheap that you'd be almost foolish to not have a local physical backup.
Personally, I wouldn't store my music in the cloud. I would back it up and stream it from the cloud, but it wouldn't be my only copy. Call me paranoid, but I like backups.
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).
ipodtoucher
Sep 13, 10:13 AM
Feelin the islands
http://unitedpackageliquors.com/catalog/images/Landshark%2012%20pack%20WEB.jpg
and stopped at Robeks on the way back heh heh
http://popdirt.com/images/agency/90412W3_CYRUS_B_GR_10.jpg
http://unitedpackageliquors.com/catalog/images/Landshark%2012%20pack%20WEB.jpg
and stopped at Robeks on the way back heh heh
http://popdirt.com/images/agency/90412W3_CYRUS_B_GR_10.jpg
more...
morespce54
Jun 9, 04:17 PM
More importantly... $1000 for a BAR exam prep app? BAR prep books are significantly less.
Well, I guess the app contain an official exam and your results get posted directly... Obviously, it's not only a "text book" kind of app...
Well, I guess the app contain an official exam and your results get posted directly... Obviously, it's not only a "text book" kind of app...
Otaillon
Oct 22, 12:57 PM
A trip to Mont Tremblant.
Went there in june with the GF for kayaking and mountain biking and it is very beautiful!
Went there in june with the GF for kayaking and mountain biking and it is very beautiful!
more...
fatboyslick
May 4, 05:07 AM
Even if Apple and Google both make money from ads and apps... Apple still gets $600 per phone.
Apple has the right idea :D
"Android" can have their marketshare... I don't think it bothers Apple in the least.
That's the point though - to compensate for the lack of profits from hardware sales, Google flood the market with their OS to make up their margins through ads and apps.
Apple are bothered and hence tried to make it more attractive for developers to use Apple over Android through Ad-Sense, thus reducing the attractiveness of Googles OS
In the end they'll probably make similar amounts of money but through slightly different routes
Apple has the right idea :D
"Android" can have their marketshare... I don't think it bothers Apple in the least.
That's the point though - to compensate for the lack of profits from hardware sales, Google flood the market with their OS to make up their margins through ads and apps.
Apple are bothered and hence tried to make it more attractive for developers to use Apple over Android through Ad-Sense, thus reducing the attractiveness of Googles OS
In the end they'll probably make similar amounts of money but through slightly different routes
Some_Big_Spoon
Jul 10, 08:45 PM
I'm with you 150%. I love pages in that it just lets me create:fast. I don't like that it makes assumptions (or more, I don't like the assumtions that it makes) as to what I want to do. Your example of the dropped in graphic is dead-on. I dropped in the graphic, so probably I want the graphic. I may want to do more with the graphic, but I may not. iWeb does the same thing, and the pre-1.1 template-only-no-blank-pages thing just made it even worse.
I'd like a tiered level Pages. Maybe an "expert mode" or something that just places things, then has better designed menus and "inspectors" to let me do what I want with it. I find the inspectors to not be well laid out or logical. Why is the text broswer in a completely different dialog than other text attributes, i.e. paragrapgh style, color, etc.? Only Apple knows. If you want to do seperate dialogs, at least give me the option to merge or tab like InDesign.
My only two beefs with Pages is the fact that its toolset is everywhere. You've got some toolbars which only really get you to some space hogging side views and inspectors which take up tons of space just for the one or two things I need to hit. Second, it needs a built in macro language - even if its based off AppleScript (i.e. an AS menu would do then). Having AppleScript support but not accessible within the app itself makes it much harder to deal with.
For example when I put in a graphic, I want to make it 2'' wide, shadow, move with text, wrap to the left with a black border. That's 4-5 panels I have to go through each time I add a pic. I add about 50 or so pics per doc.
So first I'd love if they could organize the menus, toolbars, inspectors, and such a lot better. Its just so haphazard. Next the ability to script repetitive actions.
I'd like a tiered level Pages. Maybe an "expert mode" or something that just places things, then has better designed menus and "inspectors" to let me do what I want with it. I find the inspectors to not be well laid out or logical. Why is the text broswer in a completely different dialog than other text attributes, i.e. paragrapgh style, color, etc.? Only Apple knows. If you want to do seperate dialogs, at least give me the option to merge or tab like InDesign.
My only two beefs with Pages is the fact that its toolset is everywhere. You've got some toolbars which only really get you to some space hogging side views and inspectors which take up tons of space just for the one or two things I need to hit. Second, it needs a built in macro language - even if its based off AppleScript (i.e. an AS menu would do then). Having AppleScript support but not accessible within the app itself makes it much harder to deal with.
For example when I put in a graphic, I want to make it 2'' wide, shadow, move with text, wrap to the left with a black border. That's 4-5 panels I have to go through each time I add a pic. I add about 50 or so pics per doc.
So first I'd love if they could organize the menus, toolbars, inspectors, and such a lot better. Its just so haphazard. Next the ability to script repetitive actions.
more...
appleguy123
Apr 27, 08:28 PM
It seems like my vote for nies isn't going to count for anything. Maybe tomorrow...
eldiablojo
eldiablojo
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.
more...
ten-oak-druid
Apr 29, 07:48 AM
It's actually 2.4 grams, which may not be a huge difference per se but in a product with such tight parts tollerance to me suggest differences in parts used. It may be the white casing, it may be a reshaped chassis or even a different chip. iFixit will tell.
Thanks for catching that. 2.4g yes.
Thanks for catching that. 2.4g yes.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 14, 04:37 PM
I hope nobody buys any white iphones. The whole thing just annoys me for some reason.
more...
OhEsTen
Oct 18, 09:01 PM
And 2008 even better. Presidential Election! ;)
Oh god. Dick Cheney's america scares me (almost as much as Bush's)...... another thing to worry about.
Oh god. Dick Cheney's america scares me (almost as much as Bush's)...... another thing to worry about.
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.
more...
fr4c
Jan 26, 10:44 AM
Got myself the biggest m*&*#&(*$& snow broom I can find, since it snows like every other day this year
http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/wcsstore/CVWEB/staticproductimage//N3358/large/6253598_hpo_2610xm_pri_larg.jpg
http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/wcsstore/CVWEB/staticproductimage//N3358/large/6253598_hpo_2610xm_pri_larg.jpg
Icaras
Apr 26, 12:46 PM
I would happily pay the current fee for MobileMe if Apple offered some better options for hosting a website. Right now I pay for web hosting for a family blog and a flickr pro account. If I could host my wordpress blog on my idisk space with my own domain name, I would sign up right now.
You could always do this. I have my own domain name and host on MobileMe.
Though I haven't figured out how to use an email address using my domain name and have mail hosted via MobileMe. I wish they would add that feature.
You could always do this. I have my own domain name and host on MobileMe.
Though I haven't figured out how to use an email address using my domain name and have mail hosted via MobileMe. I wish they would add that feature.
more...
Surely
Sep 12, 09:43 PM
What did you think surely? I looked up Jamba's strawberries wild nutritional value and it about equals the mdondalds one. That's not bad considering everything out of mcdonalds is scary high in calories.
I really liked it. I couldn't really taste the banana very much, but that's not a big deal. I'll never buy anything else there (besides coffee), but I'll totally buy that again.
I got a small, but I think the medium size is the sweet spot.
I really liked it. I couldn't really taste the banana very much, but that's not a big deal. I'll never buy anything else there (besides coffee), but I'll totally buy that again.
I got a small, but I think the medium size is the sweet spot.
louispavlo
Oct 24, 08:52 AM
Video iPod on thanksgiving. I would bet money on it.
That'll really knock the wind out of Zune.
That'll really knock the wind out of Zune.
logandzwon
May 4, 07:39 AM
The only thing that sucks about this timing change is that my iPhone 4 won't still be under Apple's free 1yr warranty when I re-sell it to buy an iPhone 5.
same here.
same here.
dethmaShine
Apr 26, 12:24 PM
Amazon charges its cloud service too. Why should Apple give anything away for free? :rolleyes:
I guess the point is that the base service should be free. I don't demand that from Apple but storing 2GB worth of 'my songs' should be free.
I guess the point is that the base service should be free. I don't demand that from Apple but storing 2GB worth of 'my songs' should be free.
Apple Corps
Apr 13, 08:52 AM
Again, the chosen word was "envisionned". This is purely an Intel tech that Apple had a big role in. The way Chuppa Chuppa initially phrased it reversed the roles, making this an Apple tech that Intel was tasked with implementing.
I have no qualm with Apple's big role in the tech, but they didn't "envision" it at all and to claim as such is to rewrite history.
Both of you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary.
Quoted from the Engadget article "Engadget has learned -- thanks to an extremely reliable source -- that not only is Apple complicit in the development of Light Peak, but the company actually brought the concept to Intel and asked them to create it"
You are looking at the "evidence" but refuse to see it. No idea if it is accurate - but it is in print.
I have no qualm with Apple's big role in the tech, but they didn't "envision" it at all and to claim as such is to rewrite history.
Both of you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary.
Quoted from the Engadget article "Engadget has learned -- thanks to an extremely reliable source -- that not only is Apple complicit in the development of Light Peak, but the company actually brought the concept to Intel and asked them to create it"
You are looking at the "evidence" but refuse to see it. No idea if it is accurate - but it is in print.
iOS v Android
Apr 28, 03:34 PM
So yeah, you're a geek. Geeks aren't like normal people.
How am i a geek. I need to be able to keep files on my phone like word docs that I can access at any computer. I prefer a Full keyboard and T-mo sucks many people have these same wants and needs out of a smart phone.
How am i a geek. I need to be able to keep files on my phone like word docs that I can access at any computer. I prefer a Full keyboard and T-mo sucks many people have these same wants and needs out of a smart phone.
cult hero
Apr 15, 08:19 PM
nope .. refresh happening in the next 3-4 weeks ... they want you to purchase the machine first then pay to upgrade to lion
I find that very likely.
I find that very likely.
AppleScruff1
Apr 22, 02:08 AM
It looks like Samsung is supplying the SSD in the MBA.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/04/apple-shipping-newer-faster-ssds-in-latest-macbook-airs.ars
Apple shipping newer, faster SSDs in latest MacBook Airs
by Chris Foresman | Last updated 3 days ago
Apple launched revised MacBook Air models in the fall of 2010 by going SSD-only with speedy, but custom, small outline SSD modules made by Toshiba. However, some users are now reporting that the most recent MacBook Airs are using what appears to be a Samsung-made module, which is capable of 20-25 percent faster read and write speeds.
According to testing by AnandTech, an SSD that carries the model name SM128C turned in a read speed of 261.1 MBps and a write speed of 209.6 MBps. Those speeds are 24 percent and 19 percent faster, respectively, compared to the Toshiba-made SSDs (model TS128C) that originally shipped in the MacBook Air.
While the manufacturer hasn't been confirmed yet�Apple has not responded to our request for comment�AnandTech believes the "SM" in the model name refers to Samsung. The site noted that the tested speed ratings are comparable to other SSD drives built by Samsung.
We felt that the 11" MacBook Air was very responsive with its equipped SSD module in our review last fall, but a little extra performance never hurts. For now, though, there is no way to guarantee which SSD module you'll get when buying a MacBook Air, and neither Samsung nor Toshiba appear to be offering their modules to consumers. Well-known Mac upgrade source Other World Computing offers the only known replacement SSD modules for the MacBook Air, which are rated at similar performance levels as the purported Samsung modules. Our full review of that upgrade option is coming soon.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/04/apple-shipping-newer-faster-ssds-in-latest-macbook-airs.ars
Apple shipping newer, faster SSDs in latest MacBook Airs
by Chris Foresman | Last updated 3 days ago
Apple launched revised MacBook Air models in the fall of 2010 by going SSD-only with speedy, but custom, small outline SSD modules made by Toshiba. However, some users are now reporting that the most recent MacBook Airs are using what appears to be a Samsung-made module, which is capable of 20-25 percent faster read and write speeds.
According to testing by AnandTech, an SSD that carries the model name SM128C turned in a read speed of 261.1 MBps and a write speed of 209.6 MBps. Those speeds are 24 percent and 19 percent faster, respectively, compared to the Toshiba-made SSDs (model TS128C) that originally shipped in the MacBook Air.
While the manufacturer hasn't been confirmed yet�Apple has not responded to our request for comment�AnandTech believes the "SM" in the model name refers to Samsung. The site noted that the tested speed ratings are comparable to other SSD drives built by Samsung.
We felt that the 11" MacBook Air was very responsive with its equipped SSD module in our review last fall, but a little extra performance never hurts. For now, though, there is no way to guarantee which SSD module you'll get when buying a MacBook Air, and neither Samsung nor Toshiba appear to be offering their modules to consumers. Well-known Mac upgrade source Other World Computing offers the only known replacement SSD modules for the MacBook Air, which are rated at similar performance levels as the purported Samsung modules. Our full review of that upgrade option is coming soon.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий