entropi
Apr 24, 03:05 PM
I just hope they manage to keep it as cool and quiet as our current mba 11" (1,6 Ghz C2D)... I prefer quiet computing over ultraspeed in a mba, for shure!
BenRoethig
Sep 5, 01:57 PM
This could be either really big or really bad. Either way, I don't see it going over to well without a burn to DVD option. It also needs a settop media mac. Either way, it'll be interesting to see how everything develops. Good thing I'll be in Milwaukee on the 12th. I might want to go to Mayfair to see how everything went.
EagerDragon
Sep 5, 08:26 PM
Darn it, 6 more days to go.
ghostlines
Mar 23, 04:29 PM
Pull these apps? That's a little drastic if you can use the app to avoid DUI checks you're quite good enough to drive I "think". Or they could give the developers the option to just take out that feature and leave the rest.
Apple Corps
Sep 12, 05:23 PM
Agreed.
Agreed also, also. I am suffering through the never ending wait for the Rev B MBP. Purchasing one of these iPods sounds like the same feeling one would have if purchasing the Yonah MBP today - good chance of regrets in the near future.
The stock market was not very impressed by SHOWTIME - it rose only 10 cents, and that was on a good day for the market with some analysts "upping" their rating on Apple.
I am starting to sense that Steve's "Reality Distortion Field" is not as effective as it used to be. Gonna ship iTV, downloads with LESS than dvd quality, outdated cpu in top of the line MBPs - we are not that impressed and neither was the market.
Agreed also, also. I am suffering through the never ending wait for the Rev B MBP. Purchasing one of these iPods sounds like the same feeling one would have if purchasing the Yonah MBP today - good chance of regrets in the near future.
The stock market was not very impressed by SHOWTIME - it rose only 10 cents, and that was on a good day for the market with some analysts "upping" their rating on Apple.
I am starting to sense that Steve's "Reality Distortion Field" is not as effective as it used to be. Gonna ship iTV, downloads with LESS than dvd quality, outdated cpu in top of the line MBPs - we are not that impressed and neither was the market.
lmalave
Sep 26, 10:31 PM
While on the topic of the iPhone, I am curious about video playback. It may be a lot to ask, but the Chocolate has it and Apple is competing with that and other media phones.
I don't think it's too much to ask for: I think it's a given. I fully expect the phone will record and play back video.
Video takes up a lot of space, though, so another question that hasn't been brought up in this thread is: will the iPhone have expandable memory? Or will it be more like the nano where it will have 4 GB of storage, but no expandability? I'm hoping for expandability, but I doubt it will happen. Apple wants to customers to buy iPods every couple of years, and more storage space is an added incentive to upgrade.
What I predict is that the iPhone will consistently have only as much storage as the mid-range nano (so that would be currently 4 GB). That way it can consistently be marketed as an upsell from the nano. So it will retail w/o contract for $500 instead of $200, but I'll bet with a 2 year contract it's $300 from Cingular, and possibly as low as $200 (same as nano!) if you get it from a 3rd party cell phone seller.
I also predict that down the road (but not at launch), Apple will also offer a larger hard-drive based iPhone. as with the iPod/iPod nano tradeoff, it will not only be more expensive but will be much bulkier. Again, adding the phone features might make it retail for $600, but with 2-year contract that might bring it close to the iPod price. So in about a couple of years I predict Apple will have a 40 GB iPhone in addition to a (by then) 8GB iPhone nano.
I think 5 years from now apple will be selling more iPhones than stand-alone iPods, for the simple reason that the cell phone market is vastly larger than the mp3 player market. I think if Apple can make a phone that the average consumer will be comfortable using as their primary music player, the sky's the limit. My Sony Ericsson phone is a good first attempt at music phones, but I predict in 5 years Apple will dominate the music/video phone market, and people think if the Sony Ericsson the way people now think of early pre-Apple mp3 players...
I don't think it's too much to ask for: I think it's a given. I fully expect the phone will record and play back video.
Video takes up a lot of space, though, so another question that hasn't been brought up in this thread is: will the iPhone have expandable memory? Or will it be more like the nano where it will have 4 GB of storage, but no expandability? I'm hoping for expandability, but I doubt it will happen. Apple wants to customers to buy iPods every couple of years, and more storage space is an added incentive to upgrade.
What I predict is that the iPhone will consistently have only as much storage as the mid-range nano (so that would be currently 4 GB). That way it can consistently be marketed as an upsell from the nano. So it will retail w/o contract for $500 instead of $200, but I'll bet with a 2 year contract it's $300 from Cingular, and possibly as low as $200 (same as nano!) if you get it from a 3rd party cell phone seller.
I also predict that down the road (but not at launch), Apple will also offer a larger hard-drive based iPhone. as with the iPod/iPod nano tradeoff, it will not only be more expensive but will be much bulkier. Again, adding the phone features might make it retail for $600, but with 2-year contract that might bring it close to the iPod price. So in about a couple of years I predict Apple will have a 40 GB iPhone in addition to a (by then) 8GB iPhone nano.
I think 5 years from now apple will be selling more iPhones than stand-alone iPods, for the simple reason that the cell phone market is vastly larger than the mp3 player market. I think if Apple can make a phone that the average consumer will be comfortable using as their primary music player, the sky's the limit. My Sony Ericsson phone is a good first attempt at music phones, but I predict in 5 years Apple will dominate the music/video phone market, and people think if the Sony Ericsson the way people now think of early pre-Apple mp3 players...
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 11:47 AM
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
See above. :rolleyes:
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
Dear John Lyrics Taylor Swift
Taylor Swift#39;s “Dear John”
taylor-swift-john-mayer
Dear John [FanMade Single
Analyze It: Dear John Lyrics
Taylor Swift#39;s song Dear John
Taylor Swift Wrote A Song
taylor swift dear john lyrics.
The Story Of Us Lyrics Taylor
taylor swift middot; dear john
taylor swift dear john lyrics.
Dear John Taylor Swift
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
See above. :rolleyes:
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
steviem
Apr 25, 09:37 AM
Instead of increasing the driving age, what about requiring more logged hours with a parent whit a learner's permit, manditory quality driver's ed, and making it harder for unsafe drivers to get their licence? Then require a one year driving check up a year after the licence was attained?
To be honest, it looks like the stupidity is hereditary. He has hereditary idiot disease and the only thing to teach him is either getting himself in a nasty car wreck or getting beat up or rammed off the road after cutting someone off.
To be honest, it looks like the stupidity is hereditary. He has hereditary idiot disease and the only thing to teach him is either getting himself in a nasty car wreck or getting beat up or rammed off the road after cutting someone off.
ctdonath
Apr 4, 12:46 PM
I laugh at the absurd notion of being a hero when threatened. These glorified stories of what would have happened in situation X if someone had had a gun are laughable. It doesn't work like that.
It did just happen. It did work like that. Are you laughing at the guard?
It did just happen. It did work like that. Are you laughing at the guard?
Erwin-Br
Apr 28, 03:35 PM
So, are we supposed to be proud about this? And if so, why has the same 'accomplishment' earned Microsoft the 'M$' reputation? Double morals?
Cameront9
Aug 24, 12:35 AM
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
uv23
Sep 4, 07:28 PM
I predict a more powerful, larger storage, video iPod with a dock that has component/hdmi/whatever video and optical audio outs. No big deal. It's a natural progression from what's available today.
TheSideshow
Apr 28, 05:31 PM
Apple and MS haven't competed against each other since 1993. And back then it was still just on the OS.
Apple has always competed against the entire Wintel PC market...not just Microsoft's Windows OS.
It's all about 2 different business models, essentially centering at the OS:
1)Apple makes, sells, supports the Mac OS and Mac hardware
2)Microsoft, on the other hand, simply creates the OS and licenses it to hardware vendors.
Of course Microsoft is unhappy with this breaking news but they, again, are 2 completely different business models. One could write a small book on the topic.
Why is it all the intelligent posts come from people without solely Apple products littering their signature?
Apple has always competed against the entire Wintel PC market...not just Microsoft's Windows OS.
It's all about 2 different business models, essentially centering at the OS:
1)Apple makes, sells, supports the Mac OS and Mac hardware
2)Microsoft, on the other hand, simply creates the OS and licenses it to hardware vendors.
Of course Microsoft is unhappy with this breaking news but they, again, are 2 completely different business models. One could write a small book on the topic.
Why is it all the intelligent posts come from people without solely Apple products littering their signature?
aristobrat
Sep 19, 03:26 PM
I'm not touching it until they offer 5.1 sound. I'm sure its just a matter of time, though.
I thought they had 5.1 sound already in the movie downloads?
I thought they had 5.1 sound already in the movie downloads?
Multimedia
Sep 13, 12:16 AM
what's with all the video issues that the old 5gen canNOT be compatible with?? and what's with the pixel number?
dammit i'm totally ignorant when it comes to tech issues.....
so can any of you please bother to elaborate about the suitable file types for both the old on and the new one?
:eek:This Handbrake tutorial is pretty complete (http://www.freesmug.org/tutorial/handbrake/). But you need to substitute the H.264 max dimension of 320x240 up to 640x480 the new MAX. Trouble is, as far as I can tell, the Handbrake H.264 encode to those new dimensions yields files that won't load onto Video iPods. So far only a QT Pro no options fixed iPod export works. But those files are about 150% larger than similar non-H.264 files. I have written the author of Handbrake (http://handbrake.m0k.org/) about this problem. Hopefully it will get fixed in the next month or so - I hope.
dammit i'm totally ignorant when it comes to tech issues.....
so can any of you please bother to elaborate about the suitable file types for both the old on and the new one?
:eek:This Handbrake tutorial is pretty complete (http://www.freesmug.org/tutorial/handbrake/). But you need to substitute the H.264 max dimension of 320x240 up to 640x480 the new MAX. Trouble is, as far as I can tell, the Handbrake H.264 encode to those new dimensions yields files that won't load onto Video iPods. So far only a QT Pro no options fixed iPod export works. But those files are about 150% larger than similar non-H.264 files. I have written the author of Handbrake (http://handbrake.m0k.org/) about this problem. Hopefully it will get fixed in the next month or so - I hope.
Eidorian
May 3, 11:40 AM
but i thought half the point of TB was that you would only need one output from the computer, and since we don't have any TB displays (or anything for that matter) how do we know that the ports are limited to one display?Displays are at the end of the chain. I believe there is a passthrough for additional displays as well.
You do want additional outputs to avoid the annoyance of unplugging displays. This will be more of an issue on the Mac mini and Mac Pro. I can imagine instances where the displays might not come back at all.
You do want additional outputs to avoid the annoyance of unplugging displays. This will be more of an issue on the Mac mini and Mac Pro. I can imagine instances where the displays might not come back at all.
mrrory
Oct 27, 10:48 AM
Meh, don't worry about the batteries. Sure, some people have problems, but my 3G ipod is still doing surprisingly well!
Mine too, although when I found out a replacement battery was available from Batteries + for around $25, I bought it and replaced it myself very easily. It's not as hard as some might think.
I'm all about apple being green too, but is it not possible that Greenpeace are making an example of apple more because of their high profile than because they are the worst offenders. Greenpeace's campaign wouldn't seem quite so "cool" if they were attacking compaq or gateway etc...
Mine too, although when I found out a replacement battery was available from Batteries + for around $25, I bought it and replaced it myself very easily. It's not as hard as some might think.
I'm all about apple being green too, but is it not possible that Greenpeace are making an example of apple more because of their high profile than because they are the worst offenders. Greenpeace's campaign wouldn't seem quite so "cool" if they were attacking compaq or gateway etc...
shervieux
Apr 23, 05:30 PM
That's what's going to happen, I'm sure of it. And I'm honestly kind of impressed that the MacBook Pro still doesn't give you an option to buy one without a DVD drive; I have a 2011 MBP and I swear, it doesn't get any use whatsoever. Apple's obsession with using every square millimeter of space on a portable device apparently ends when it comes to optical disk drives on MBPs.
I'd much rather have additional battery life. QC i7s eat battery for breakfast, even Sandy Bridge.
Normally, I would say I could go either way with the optical drive. But lately, I have been having to burn a lot of CD's and DVD's for people. I would be willing to give up the optical drive for a second hard drive in a MBP. I would want a thunderbolt quad core with 4gb ram. I need a min of 750gb in hard drive space.
If the price of SSD was not so high, I would look into an AIR. A 13-inch quad core air with 4gb ram would be sweet. I just priced out what I would need in an AIR (but drive still too small) and it comes to the price of just getting a MBP.
I'd much rather have additional battery life. QC i7s eat battery for breakfast, even Sandy Bridge.
Normally, I would say I could go either way with the optical drive. But lately, I have been having to burn a lot of CD's and DVD's for people. I would be willing to give up the optical drive for a second hard drive in a MBP. I would want a thunderbolt quad core with 4gb ram. I need a min of 750gb in hard drive space.
If the price of SSD was not so high, I would look into an AIR. A 13-inch quad core air with 4gb ram would be sweet. I just priced out what I would need in an AIR (but drive still too small) and it comes to the price of just getting a MBP.
BWhaler
Sep 27, 04:43 AM
Enough with the dance. Release the product already.
Every cell phone on the market sucks in some way. I'd love to have an Apple phone which simply just works.
Every cell phone on the market sucks in some way. I'd love to have an Apple phone which simply just works.
hayesk
May 3, 07:09 PM
I agree with this completely.
And where on the MBP logic board would you like to place the second video card?
And where on the MBP logic board would you like to place the second video card?
Bear
Sep 26, 09:26 AM
Oh man. Verizon early termination fee, here I come.I wouldn't pick a cellular service company based on just the available phone models.
Does the company have service where you need it?
Do they have a service plan that fits your calling needs?
etc...
Oh and if you do decide you want to switch, see if the new company will give you some crefit towards the early termination fee.
Does the company have service where you need it?
Do they have a service plan that fits your calling needs?
etc...
Oh and if you do decide you want to switch, see if the new company will give you some crefit towards the early termination fee.
SilianRail
Apr 16, 03:13 PM
These protocols last like a decade. 60 MB/s is slow today, can't imagine it being bearable in 5-10 years.
Squire
Sep 3, 07:13 PM
This may be a really dumb question, but when the new MBP comes out, do y'all think it'll stay aroudn the same price range or increase?:confused:
I'd guess stay the same or maybe even decrease depending on the price Apple gets on Merom chips.
-Squire
I'd guess stay the same or maybe even decrease depending on the price Apple gets on Merom chips.
-Squire
cleric
Apr 22, 01:55 PM
Youtube is a problem. The Intel 3000HD still isn't supported by the Video Decode Acceleration Framework (VDA for short) that Apple released in 2010 to enable Adobe to implement hardware decoding of H.264 video. So right now, a MBA is offloading decoding to the nVidia 320M, while a new SB MBA would revert to standard CPU decoding, throwing us back to the dark ages of ****** Flash, where we now have passable Flash.
If thats the case it pretty much makes it useless, especially when there is an official version of VLC with h264 acceleration.
If thats the case it pretty much makes it useless, especially when there is an official version of VLC with h264 acceleration.
No comments:
Post a Comment