MacCheetah3
Jul 24, 10:25 PM
Hi
1) I don't see the right / left clicking complaint to be valid. It does work differently than a three peice ( two button / rest of shell ) mouse but all it takes is some getting use to. It isn't a design flaw, as far as my opinion goes
2) The scroll ball is a design flaw to an extent but not overly difficult to fix. It simply gets 'greasy' from hand oils, ... Normally using "just enough" rubbing alcohol on a cloth or paper towel and [vigorously] rolling the MM upside down on it with the scroll ball cleans and dislodges any "gunk" buildup. Tedious and one shouldn't have to do it but I've never seen a mouse that stays perfectly clean with 'normal' use.
1) I don't see the right / left clicking complaint to be valid. It does work differently than a three peice ( two button / rest of shell ) mouse but all it takes is some getting use to. It isn't a design flaw, as far as my opinion goes
2) The scroll ball is a design flaw to an extent but not overly difficult to fix. It simply gets 'greasy' from hand oils, ... Normally using "just enough" rubbing alcohol on a cloth or paper towel and [vigorously] rolling the MM upside down on it with the scroll ball cleans and dislodges any "gunk" buildup. Tedious and one shouldn't have to do it but I've never seen a mouse that stays perfectly clean with 'normal' use.
epmadsen
Apr 30, 06:01 PM
Great! Commoditize an art form and degrade it even further.
It's bad enough we've already hacked music apart by turning it digital, now we're treating it like soda pop. Everything is a bargain bin price war.
It's bad enough we've already hacked music apart by turning it digital, now we're treating it like soda pop. Everything is a bargain bin price war.
lilo777
Apr 22, 02:29 PM
Apple is using the same CPUs as everyone else, for which their enclosures are extremely competitive in terms of dimensions.
You get it partly wrong. It's true that Apple is not using special chips. They use some of the chips that all other companies use. But they do not use many of the chips the users would want to have. The reasoning might differ - whether it's the case or the motherboard, but the end result is the same - limited choices. Like no quad core CPUs in laptops before SandyBridge was released (wrong TDP), or sticking with outdated C2P for years.
You get it partly wrong. It's true that Apple is not using special chips. They use some of the chips that all other companies use. But they do not use many of the chips the users would want to have. The reasoning might differ - whether it's the case or the motherboard, but the end result is the same - limited choices. Like no quad core CPUs in laptops before SandyBridge was released (wrong TDP), or sticking with outdated C2P for years.
LarzStarz
Apr 13, 02:31 PM
Time to start the following threads...
"Apple HDTV Shipping Thread"
"What do you use your Apple HDTV for?"
"Apple HDTV Backlight Bleeding"
"I've got a speck of dust under my Apple HDTV glass cover, should I return?"
"Darn Apple HDTV Scalpers!!!"
"What color Apple HDTV should I get?"
"Apple HDTV Shipping Thread"
"What do you use your Apple HDTV for?"
"Apple HDTV Backlight Bleeding"
"I've got a speck of dust under my Apple HDTV glass cover, should I return?"
"Darn Apple HDTV Scalpers!!!"
"What color Apple HDTV should I get?"
more...
j800r
May 3, 08:09 AM
The way they've been able to keep the price low while using quad-cores in EVERY iMac has been by downgrading the GPUs. The Graphics Cards in EVERY model are now mobile. In the last line of iMacs they were full powered desktop GPUs.
So, you see, while there's an upside (the processors), it doesn't come without a down (the GPUs). At first glance I was really annoyed as the �999 one (which is what I got before the refresh) had an i5 quad core, then I saw the graphics memory and got even more annoyed, but THEN I noticed the large shiny M at the end of the GPU name. THAT's how they've been able to bring us them processors and still keep the price down. They've downgraded the GPUs. As my i3 processor practically acts like a quad core anyway and is virtually never pushed to it's limits I think I'm more than happy with what I have. The GPU may only have 256MB dedicated memory but at least it's not mobile.
So, you see, while there's an upside (the processors), it doesn't come without a down (the GPUs). At first glance I was really annoyed as the �999 one (which is what I got before the refresh) had an i5 quad core, then I saw the graphics memory and got even more annoyed, but THEN I noticed the large shiny M at the end of the GPU name. THAT's how they've been able to bring us them processors and still keep the price down. They've downgraded the GPUs. As my i3 processor practically acts like a quad core anyway and is virtually never pushed to it's limits I think I'm more than happy with what I have. The GPU may only have 256MB dedicated memory but at least it's not mobile.
7on
Jul 24, 04:22 PM
for a while on ebay there were $30 Apple BT mice. Don't know if they're still there, but it was a good buy.
more...
Evangelion
Jul 12, 09:23 AM
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 decided to quote myself here. I would like Apple to REALLY do something revolutionary for a change. iPod was nice. A big improvement over what was available at the time, sure, but not revolutionary. And while iPod has been improved over the years, the steps have been quite small. Larger storage, smaller size, less weight, color-screen, refinements... How about REALLY rocking our world for a change? Enough with these evolutionary steps, take a revolutionary step instead! You have the audience, you have the market, you have the brand. You CAN do it! If there's anyone who can do it, it's you.
Remember the "Think Different"? I would like Apple to do so. Instead of living the status quo, and making small improvements, make something different. Make iPod revolutionary. The groundwork has already been done. You just need to take that one step.
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 decided to quote myself here. I would like Apple to REALLY do something revolutionary for a change. iPod was nice. A big improvement over what was available at the time, sure, but not revolutionary. And while iPod has been improved over the years, the steps have been quite small. Larger storage, smaller size, less weight, color-screen, refinements... How about REALLY rocking our world for a change? Enough with these evolutionary steps, take a revolutionary step instead! You have the audience, you have the market, you have the brand. You CAN do it! If there's anyone who can do it, it's you.
Remember the "Think Different"? I would like Apple to do so. Instead of living the status quo, and making small improvements, make something different. Make iPod revolutionary. The groundwork has already been done. You just need to take that one step.
Psilocybin
Apr 18, 09:44 AM
This one goes out to all the tinfoil hat wearers....you know who you are (secret code inserted here.-..-11..-312).
I think Apple intentionally borked our current 320M graphic power in the 10.6.7 release fiasco. This was intentional. That way when they release the new MBA's with the inferior integrated graphics chipset, they can actually show an IMPROVEMENT in graphic speed.
Seriously. Its true. I read it on the intrawebs.
why would that not surprise me
I think Apple intentionally borked our current 320M graphic power in the 10.6.7 release fiasco. This was intentional. That way when they release the new MBA's with the inferior integrated graphics chipset, they can actually show an IMPROVEMENT in graphic speed.
Seriously. Its true. I read it on the intrawebs.
why would that not surprise me
more...
RBR2
Apr 14, 02:25 PM
Hum, you have no idea what Fiber channel is if you seriously claim that. Fiber channel is a networking protocol for storage essentially, Thunderbolt is a host based technology. Call me when Thunderbolt can be switched, redundant, do LUN provisioning and can be extended over a MAN to offer multi-site storage.
Why don't you start reading things before making your incendiary comments?
:rolleyes:
Why don't you start reading things before making your incendiary comments?
:rolleyes:
tristangage
Apr 1, 02:14 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5307/5574992009_2e52524dbd.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5574992009/)
fountains. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5574992009/) by tristangage (http://www.flickr.com/people/tristangage/), on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS 500D
Exposure 1/4000 sec
Aperture f/4.5
Focal Length 25 mm
ISO Speed 800
fountains. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5574992009/) by tristangage (http://www.flickr.com/people/tristangage/), on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS 500D
Exposure 1/4000 sec
Aperture f/4.5
Focal Length 25 mm
ISO Speed 800
more...
ToTem.M@cinPosh
Jul 25, 02:01 PM
Its cool apple is making it so shut up
mattster16
Sep 30, 09:47 AM
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
The solution to this is to create smaller cell sites that cover a smaller area (and therefore will have fewer users at any given time). The problem with this is that each new cell site requires a new tower. With all the opposition to new tower construction it can take months or years to get approval to build one.
With the massive growth in cell usage companies are having to create smaller and smaller cell sites. Because of the way the system works putting up one new tower requires the reconfiguration of all the adjacent towers. Their signal area must be changed, their frequencies must be changed and it all must be integrated together.
When you get a dropped call, it's usually because you are moving into another cell site (serviced by a new tower). Your call must be handed off to the new tower. If this new tower is at capacity or overloaded, failures happen.
This is why it sucks for very high density areas.
Luckily in Minneapolis we have very good AT&T coverage. I get very fast 3G speeds and <1% dropped calls everywhere I go. Thank you urban sprawl for spreading everyone out.. When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
The solution to this is to create smaller cell sites that cover a smaller area (and therefore will have fewer users at any given time). The problem with this is that each new cell site requires a new tower. With all the opposition to new tower construction it can take months or years to get approval to build one.
With the massive growth in cell usage companies are having to create smaller and smaller cell sites. Because of the way the system works putting up one new tower requires the reconfiguration of all the adjacent towers. Their signal area must be changed, their frequencies must be changed and it all must be integrated together.
When you get a dropped call, it's usually because you are moving into another cell site (serviced by a new tower). Your call must be handed off to the new tower. If this new tower is at capacity or overloaded, failures happen.
This is why it sucks for very high density areas.
Luckily in Minneapolis we have very good AT&T coverage. I get very fast 3G speeds and <1% dropped calls everywhere I go. Thank you urban sprawl for spreading everyone out.. When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
more...
hofer
Apr 25, 08:27 AM
"The T-Mobile US network uses different frequencies than AT&T's, requiring different hardware to support."
It surprises me that it would need different hardware. I know that it is possible to jailbreak a AT&T phone to work with T-mobile. so apparently it can be done with software.
It surprises me that it would need different hardware. I know that it is possible to jailbreak a AT&T phone to work with T-mobile. so apparently it can be done with software.
mac jones
Apr 28, 08:24 PM
this sounds really really insane :D
Do they weigh more? is it cream filled?
Thick creamy new iPhone!
Do they weigh more? is it cream filled?
Thick creamy new iPhone!
more...
whatever
Oct 23, 11:18 AM
oh great. so those mac users who are possibly interested in actually getting a legitimate version now have to pay a lot...
...kinda puts one of getting a legitimate version...
Come on, who really buys legal copies of Windows?
A few years ago I tried to buy a legal copy of Windows 2000 (the software I was loading required 2000 and would not work on XP). I started off at CompUSA and after a few more stores I ended up contacting Microsoft directly and they thought I was crazy. They were totality confused by my request to buy a legal copy of Windows. They referred me to the restore discs that came with a Dell we had. Well, that didn't really help much. And then they actually recommended that I borrow a copy from a friend.
And here I was trying to buy a legal copy of Windows from MS, granted it wasn't the latest version (however XP had just come out, so 2000 wasn't that old) and MS was telling me to pirate the software.
...kinda puts one of getting a legitimate version...
Come on, who really buys legal copies of Windows?
A few years ago I tried to buy a legal copy of Windows 2000 (the software I was loading required 2000 and would not work on XP). I started off at CompUSA and after a few more stores I ended up contacting Microsoft directly and they thought I was crazy. They were totality confused by my request to buy a legal copy of Windows. They referred me to the restore discs that came with a Dell we had. Well, that didn't really help much. And then they actually recommended that I borrow a copy from a friend.
And here I was trying to buy a legal copy of Windows from MS, granted it wasn't the latest version (however XP had just come out, so 2000 wasn't that old) and MS was telling me to pirate the software.
ruzz1141
Apr 15, 06:17 AM
Can anyone confirm if the battery life has improved?
Unfortunately, no! My wife's 3GS lost 33% overnight after a full charge :(
I just did the normal update. Next I am going to try to just install 4.3.2 and setup as new and not restore any data and see if stock install still has issue to rule out some corrupt setting/data.
Unfortunately, no! My wife's 3GS lost 33% overnight after a full charge :(
I just did the normal update. Next I am going to try to just install 4.3.2 and setup as new and not restore any data and see if stock install still has issue to rule out some corrupt setting/data.
more...
redAPPLE
Jul 25, 08:41 AM
It's about time. But I've had a wireless mouse/keyboard set when I got my iMac G5 Rev. A back in the day, and I quickly got rid of it. I was sick and tired of changing the damn batteries every few weeks. I never mouse or type away from my desk, so I had no use for it, and I'd rather have the ugly wires than deal with the annoyance of buying/changing batteries often. Now, if they were rechargeable (in a dock, I don't want to have to take them out and put them in a seperate charger), I could see using them.
apple could use firewire cables (like the iPods) to recharge wireless keyboards and mice.
long live firewire.
apple could use firewire cables (like the iPods) to recharge wireless keyboards and mice.
long live firewire.
TheOnlyJon
Nov 24, 11:55 PM
I want my brother to be able to go to Germany with his school like I was able to.
mc68k
Oct 26, 01:34 PM
wow 27 mins is great!
at that rate it could complete a unit in as little as 1.9 days! the MP im using takes 3+
at that rate it could complete a unit in as little as 1.9 days! the MP im using takes 3+
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 11, 10:54 AM
What's with all the developers that won't do Universal Apps?
If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)
Apple dropped support for PPC in Snow Leopard and so many programs now even require Snow Leopard to run. Such programs will not work in Leopard, let alone as Universal Apps. If you use any Snow Leopard specific features, I figure you cannot get a Universal binary regardless. It's why I think Apple should have waited until Lion to ditch PPC. Developers for OSX tend to prematurely drop support for previous versions of the operating system simply because they cannot be bothered to support it and/or have no way to test it. I think a lot of apps didn't bother with PPC purely due to the testing issue. Some apps need a bit of tweaking to work in PPC some times even with Apple's two for the price of one system.
This is why I said when Apple dropped PPC for a "tweak" upgrade (Snow Leopard) that PPC was pretty much finished despite all the people saying that "Leopard still works". Yes, it still works but most new software does not. You see the same thin on the App store for iOS a lot. Some app updates will suddenly require iOS 4.x and too bad if iTunes isn't flagged properly and it updates it locally since older iPod Touches and iPhones won't be able to use the app at that point.
You don't just lose out on any new operating system features when your hardware isn't supported any longer. You often lose out on new software as well. You rarely see this with Windows. The vast majority of software that works with Vista and Windows7 still works with XP. Even most games still support DirectX 9 as well because so many users still use XP (which is still faster for gaming for the most part). And XP isn't even officially supported by Microsoft anymore. I guess that's the problem with the high turnover rates with OSX. Older versions get dumped into oblivion instead of slowly fading away. Look how fast OS9 disappeared off the face of the earth whereas you could still get quite a bit of software for Win98 a decade later even.
As for Skyfire and flash, it just proves that despite fanboy ravings on here, a lot of people still want to be able to view Flash web sites. Having a crippled Internet experience just plain sucks, especially if it's only to push one man's agenda for a Flash free Internet. Well, it's not going anywhere fast, regardless and Apple should not be allowed to market things like "the whole Internet" for iOS devices when it's not true.
If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)
Apple dropped support for PPC in Snow Leopard and so many programs now even require Snow Leopard to run. Such programs will not work in Leopard, let alone as Universal Apps. If you use any Snow Leopard specific features, I figure you cannot get a Universal binary regardless. It's why I think Apple should have waited until Lion to ditch PPC. Developers for OSX tend to prematurely drop support for previous versions of the operating system simply because they cannot be bothered to support it and/or have no way to test it. I think a lot of apps didn't bother with PPC purely due to the testing issue. Some apps need a bit of tweaking to work in PPC some times even with Apple's two for the price of one system.
This is why I said when Apple dropped PPC for a "tweak" upgrade (Snow Leopard) that PPC was pretty much finished despite all the people saying that "Leopard still works". Yes, it still works but most new software does not. You see the same thin on the App store for iOS a lot. Some app updates will suddenly require iOS 4.x and too bad if iTunes isn't flagged properly and it updates it locally since older iPod Touches and iPhones won't be able to use the app at that point.
You don't just lose out on any new operating system features when your hardware isn't supported any longer. You often lose out on new software as well. You rarely see this with Windows. The vast majority of software that works with Vista and Windows7 still works with XP. Even most games still support DirectX 9 as well because so many users still use XP (which is still faster for gaming for the most part). And XP isn't even officially supported by Microsoft anymore. I guess that's the problem with the high turnover rates with OSX. Older versions get dumped into oblivion instead of slowly fading away. Look how fast OS9 disappeared off the face of the earth whereas you could still get quite a bit of software for Win98 a decade later even.
As for Skyfire and flash, it just proves that despite fanboy ravings on here, a lot of people still want to be able to view Flash web sites. Having a crippled Internet experience just plain sucks, especially if it's only to push one man's agenda for a Flash free Internet. Well, it's not going anywhere fast, regardless and Apple should not be allowed to market things like "the whole Internet" for iOS devices when it's not true.
Jswoosh
Apr 26, 12:19 AM
So this tomorrow right? :p
Ok I guess I'll have to wait another week. (Assuming this is accurate).
Ok I guess I'll have to wait another week. (Assuming this is accurate).
nick004
Oct 24, 08:12 AM
Whats the shipping times?
nagromme
Jul 24, 10:22 PM
Some Apple patents are just "out there" and don't sound useful in practice. I never expect to see them in a product.
But THIS sounds actually very useful--the problem of whether a keyboard hogs the screen or not is solved, etc. etc.
Apple's hiring says they're serious about touch computing. For an iPod? For a Mac? And when? I can't wait to find out!
But THIS sounds actually very useful--the problem of whether a keyboard hogs the screen or not is solved, etc. etc.
Apple's hiring says they're serious about touch computing. For an iPod? For a Mac? And when? I can't wait to find out!
KnightWRX
Apr 15, 03:08 PM
Poster wasn't stirring the pot.
No, I guess this guy wasn't bashing Google at all :
Learn from Google? What has Google developed that's anything close to an OS?
The fact is, Android/Chrome OS have a lot in common with the efforts Apple put forth into making iOS/OS X. Both companies are well placed to learn from each other and this crap doesn't belong in this thread.
just so you know, summer begins june 21 and ends sept 23 this year. so even it it comes out sept 22, its still a summer release.
Yes, I am quite aware of this fact, thank you for pointing it out to other posters who might say "an august release isn't a summer release!" though.
No, I guess this guy wasn't bashing Google at all :
Learn from Google? What has Google developed that's anything close to an OS?
The fact is, Android/Chrome OS have a lot in common with the efforts Apple put forth into making iOS/OS X. Both companies are well placed to learn from each other and this crap doesn't belong in this thread.
just so you know, summer begins june 21 and ends sept 23 this year. so even it it comes out sept 22, its still a summer release.
Yes, I am quite aware of this fact, thank you for pointing it out to other posters who might say "an august release isn't a summer release!" though.
No comments:
Post a Comment