LarryC
Apr 9, 04:25 PM
um just walked into my local Best buy and bought a 16gb ipad 2 Wifi in black. they had like 7 or 8 of each model. interesting... maybe they�re not participating in this so called promotion.
star wars clone funny shirt,
xwing crash star wars
Funny Star Wars humor.
more...
Funny Star Wars Demotivational
Funny Star Wars
more...
funny star wars.
I can#39;t believe how funny cows
more...
_uphaa_com.jpg "Funny Star Wars and Disney")
Funny Star Wars and Disney
Funny Star Wars movies ad
more...
funny-star-wars-pict.
funny star wars pictures.
more...
Star Wars franchise should
See more funny star wars
more...
funny-pictures-orange-
Too Long for quot;Star Warsquot;
more...
Just a funny Star Wars Pic!
Re: Funny Star Wars imagery
stupid Star Wars photos!
iGary
Sep 25, 09:44 PM
I have an experiment for those that say "My car runs fine on Chevron gas."
1. Use parking break.
2. Try accellerating to freeway speeds.
Report back when done.
Seriously, you realize that the "straightening tool" is not a free-form rotation tool, right? It's optimized for 1-10 degree straightenings, not flipping the picture around.
That having been said, yes, straightening is maddeningly slow on G5s (also on iPhoto ... I have dual 2.0 G5s, and fullscreen or even windowed straightening stutters all over the place). They've got an algorithm problem there (or, more likely, an algorithm which doesn't check for a "break" often enough, which makes it unresponsive and seem really slow). But, the test for that isn't doing a 180-degree rotation on an image; the test is trying to get a correct 1.25 degree rotation when the tools seem to be fighting with you.
The key is this: they could fix the tool to work perfectly for straightening, and still flipping the image around 180 degrees would be slow as molasses to render. Which is just fine, because the 90-degree rotate works fast as can be.
I'd answer this, but you know, I'm tired of fighting sarcasm.
1. Use parking break.
2. Try accellerating to freeway speeds.
Report back when done.
Seriously, you realize that the "straightening tool" is not a free-form rotation tool, right? It's optimized for 1-10 degree straightenings, not flipping the picture around.
That having been said, yes, straightening is maddeningly slow on G5s (also on iPhoto ... I have dual 2.0 G5s, and fullscreen or even windowed straightening stutters all over the place). They've got an algorithm problem there (or, more likely, an algorithm which doesn't check for a "break" often enough, which makes it unresponsive and seem really slow). But, the test for that isn't doing a 180-degree rotation on an image; the test is trying to get a correct 1.25 degree rotation when the tools seem to be fighting with you.
The key is this: they could fix the tool to work perfectly for straightening, and still flipping the image around 180 degrees would be slow as molasses to render. Which is just fine, because the 90-degree rotate works fast as can be.
I'd answer this, but you know, I'm tired of fighting sarcasm.
fortetfn
Aug 15, 11:06 PM
Mine was manufactured in June 2006 and Apple said that it was the old stock. I really wish if it was like someone here said that the new specs were quietly going back in April which means that mine would possibly be the new stock.
How I could possibly determine whether mine is the new one or not is by turning all the lights off in my room. This is a brand new 23"ACD from an Apple store. I don't need to set the brightness setting to 25% or more... definitely you would agree that a 23" display is a fairly big monitor as a big canvas in front of me. With no other lighting in the room, wouldn't I want to turn the brightness setting all the way down to the bottom if I don't want to burn my eyes with it. The answer is no. I let this display stay on for a while, but it is still not much brighter than when I just turned it on.
For a new monitor, i don't think I would need to turn the brightness setting so high up to impress myself with its brightness. I can positively say that if mine display was the new stock, Apple didn't do a good job on tweaking up to the new specs... I'm not going to talk about my ghosting problem, though that is a slight issue.
Hope someone has a different serial number, so we could differentiate between the new stock and the old stock. It's been really frustrating....:(
How I could possibly determine whether mine is the new one or not is by turning all the lights off in my room. This is a brand new 23"ACD from an Apple store. I don't need to set the brightness setting to 25% or more... definitely you would agree that a 23" display is a fairly big monitor as a big canvas in front of me. With no other lighting in the room, wouldn't I want to turn the brightness setting all the way down to the bottom if I don't want to burn my eyes with it. The answer is no. I let this display stay on for a while, but it is still not much brighter than when I just turned it on.
For a new monitor, i don't think I would need to turn the brightness setting so high up to impress myself with its brightness. I can positively say that if mine display was the new stock, Apple didn't do a good job on tweaking up to the new specs... I'm not going to talk about my ghosting problem, though that is a slight issue.
Hope someone has a different serial number, so we could differentiate between the new stock and the old stock. It's been really frustrating....:(
byeehaaw
Jan 15, 02:19 PM
where is 10.5.2!? that was the main thing i was looking for lol
more...
slffl
Jan 9, 01:57 PM
Wow, so much for the spoiler free link. I just checked the page and saw WHAT THEY ANNOUNCED in some kind of news ticker!!!!!!!
Maybe next year.
Maybe next year.
Truffy
Mar 25, 04:33 AM
My first Mac (G4 Cube) came with both OS9 and Cheetah. OS X was barely usable then (to a non-propellorhead newbie), and I started mainly with the old OS. God how that looks tired now. For me, OS X didn't really start until Panther.
I still have that Cube. Great little computer!
I still have that Cube. Great little computer!
more...
nonameowns
Mar 17, 06:01 AM
You didn't "just tell a story," you crowed about ripping someone off.
not really. the kid is aware of the total price and had a brain fart there.
not really. the kid is aware of the total price and had a brain fart there.
mozmac
Oct 19, 11:41 AM
I've bought and sold quite a bit of AAPL over the years since, but always held onto my original stake. My cost basis is around $4 a share. Now I can't afford to sell it!
I was 14 back in 1997 when AAPL was sitting around $12. I told my parents and my uncle to dump tons of money into it because it was going up. They didn't really listen to me. My parents did put a little in by buying two shares for each of us kids (6 in total) for Christmas. Since then they've split a few times and are now sitting at around $80. I'm loving it. I've bought more since, but like you, I'm still holding onto my original stake, which is at 6 shares now, thanks to splits.
I was 14 back in 1997 when AAPL was sitting around $12. I told my parents and my uncle to dump tons of money into it because it was going up. They didn't really listen to me. My parents did put a little in by buying two shares for each of us kids (6 in total) for Christmas. Since then they've split a few times and are now sitting at around $80. I'm loving it. I've bought more since, but like you, I'm still holding onto my original stake, which is at 6 shares now, thanks to splits.
more...
Reverend Wally
Nov 16, 01:03 PM
Consider that Apple, Intel, and AMD are IT developers and always expanding and inventing new pathways. AMD is not asleep, and neither is Intel, and frankly, Apple, being the Rolls Royce of computers would not impose limits on their capabilities. Maybe we will not see an AMD Apple real soon, but these people are on the leading edge, and I cannot imagine that the engineers do not think in this direction. IF Apple does go that way it will be for a very good and valid reason.
SO
Meanwhile, let's enjoy our Rolls Royce type computers without trying to turn them into Lamborghinis
:D
SO
Meanwhile, let's enjoy our Rolls Royce type computers without trying to turn them into Lamborghinis
:D
aznkid25
Jan 15, 10:43 PM
Just imagine in September when Apple has the September ipod keynote, SJ will probably say something like this:"The MBA sales have been average this year, we think we can do better, and we want to make it more affordable for the holiday season, so we will be dropping the price $500 and now it will cost $1300.
more...
Chundles
Sep 12, 02:56 AM
From engadget (as i couldn't be bothered to look them up myself :P)
7:00AM - Hawaii
10:00AM - Pacific
11:00AM - Mountain
12:00PM - Central
1:00PM - Eastern
5:00PM - GMT
6:00PM - London
7:00PM - Paris
2:00AM - Tokyo (September 13th)
Keep going... All 13th September:
5am - New Zealand
3am - Eastern Australia
2:30am - Central Australia
1am - Western Australia
7:00AM - Hawaii
10:00AM - Pacific
11:00AM - Mountain
12:00PM - Central
1:00PM - Eastern
5:00PM - GMT
6:00PM - London
7:00PM - Paris
2:00AM - Tokyo (September 13th)
Keep going... All 13th September:
5am - New Zealand
3am - Eastern Australia
2:30am - Central Australia
1am - Western Australia
Lord Blackadder
Aug 3, 11:20 AM
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
more...
res1233
Mar 25, 04:10 AM
Odd choice of words. "Behemoth" is most often used to describe something that that it is so large that it is unpleasant. And "major behemoth" is redundant.
My Nerdar has gone off.
My Nerdar has gone off.
MrMoore
Mar 25, 10:25 AM
Wow! 10 years. I remember installing it on a Power Mac G3. Saying "Cool" and booting back to OS 9 ;)
I though it was sleek looking, but when I need to do real "work", I went back to "classic" OS. It wasn't until 10.2 (Jaguar) that I became full time OS X user and also put Windows in the bin. Haven't look back since. :D
I though it was sleek looking, but when I need to do real "work", I went back to "classic" OS. It wasn't until 10.2 (Jaguar) that I became full time OS X user and also put Windows in the bin. Haven't look back since. :D
more...
Sounds Good
Apr 21, 09:23 PM
When is Windows 8 due out?
steelfist
Nov 25, 07:22 AM
i love discount days. apple should do this more often have a longer time period. discount day and more negatives than positives? this is insane.
hope there's a good discount at christmas and valentine's day
hope there's a good discount at christmas and valentine's day
more...
Azathoth
May 4, 03:21 AM
I predict that some of my friends, Android-phone owners will want to throw their device away. Google is making things less fun for them, unless they want to root.
???
Get your facts straight
This is the carriers messing people over, not Google.
Google added wireless hotspot feature to all Android 2.2 (Froyo) devices last year (and Apple included a similar feature in to the iPhone 4 with IOS 4 AFAIK).
???
Get your facts straight
This is the carriers messing people over, not Google.
Google added wireless hotspot feature to all Android 2.2 (Froyo) devices last year (and Apple included a similar feature in to the iPhone 4 with IOS 4 AFAIK).
dpaanlka
Jan 12, 06:37 PM
You all need to stop worrying about Steve Jobs rightful attitude is. Apple lost him once. Ten years later he came back. Now ten years after that, you all can't stand him? Are you kidding me? He can do whatever he wants! Worry about something more important!
And white text is not the best choice, because the background of MacRumors isn't white, it is color #FAFAFA. Get with the program people.
And white text is not the best choice, because the background of MacRumors isn't white, it is color #FAFAFA. Get with the program people.
arn
Nov 23, 06:38 PM
typically you can't combine with edu discounts.
arn
arn
lordonuthin
Apr 26, 08:04 PM
well i got a new motherboard and processor for my third i7 system. i also put in 4 GPUs in it as well. i have it running all 4 GPUs and a bigadv unit in a VM, but i'm not sure if the bigadv VM is working right. it didn't look quite right when i left, but i had to leave. i guess i'll find out in 3 days if it's working or not
What GPU's do you have in it? Are they new or some you already had? It will be interesting to see how the bigadv units work on it. I think you said it is an i7 920? Do you have it OC'd?
I need to figure out how to set up VM's to see if they could be usefull for me.
What GPU's do you have in it? Are they new or some you already had? It will be interesting to see how the bigadv units work on it. I think you said it is an i7 920? Do you have it OC'd?
I need to figure out how to set up VM's to see if they could be usefull for me.
cybermiguel
Nov 16, 09:59 PM
who wants to run amd anyway?
I would.
You see...ATi's integrated graphics solution is WAAYY BETTER than Intel 945 integrated graphics solution, so, it would be the perfect match for a lowcost laptop: Turion CPU and an ATi chipset.
Here's a page with some IGP benchmarks: http://kettya.com/notebook2/gpu_ranking.htm
I would.
You see...ATi's integrated graphics solution is WAAYY BETTER than Intel 945 integrated graphics solution, so, it would be the perfect match for a lowcost laptop: Turion CPU and an ATi chipset.
Here's a page with some IGP benchmarks: http://kettya.com/notebook2/gpu_ranking.htm
shawnce
Oct 31, 10:57 AM
and until they closed the source, Darwin worked on most generic x86 platforms anyway. umm... they didn't close the source...
arn
Oct 11, 01:03 PM
I always took that as an implication that page 1 rumors were from more reliable sources, and should be considered more likely to be true. I didn't say that they were guaranteed to be true, just that they are more reliable.
I agree but you said
"Unless you (MacRumors, not the 'source' website of the rumor,) have credible, reliable, direct sources, it belongs on Page 2"
and, again, that's not the criteria.
Page 1 stories are generally more reliable than Page 2 stories... and that's true in this case but it's not a hard and fast rule. People get too hung up on Page 1 vs. Page 2. If a more unceratin rumor gets posted on Page 1, it is generally posted with caveats, as in this case.
arn
I agree but you said
"Unless you (MacRumors, not the 'source' website of the rumor,) have credible, reliable, direct sources, it belongs on Page 2"
and, again, that's not the criteria.
Page 1 stories are generally more reliable than Page 2 stories... and that's true in this case but it's not a hard and fast rule. People get too hung up on Page 1 vs. Page 2. If a more unceratin rumor gets posted on Page 1, it is generally posted with caveats, as in this case.
arn
Branskins
Apr 15, 08:31 PM
I really want this!
