jubjub
Aug 6, 08:48 AM
Does anyone think the recent "problems" at Apple are going to have any effect on what happens Monday.
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
You might be right..
Other than that I find it amusing that "One more thing" is now a mainstream thing.
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
You might be right..
Other than that I find it amusing that "One more thing" is now a mainstream thing.
jholzner
Jul 27, 03:16 PM
Nice news from intel, good for WWDC ...
... Apple will probably announce right before, since SJ said long ago no hard announcements at WWDC.
Of course he reverses A LOT :eek:
Can you show me where he said that? I don't recall hearing that his year. In the past I recall them stating that but it was only for the particular WWDC not a blanket statement. They intro'd the G5 Powermac at a WWDC.
... Apple will probably announce right before, since SJ said long ago no hard announcements at WWDC.
Of course he reverses A LOT :eek:
Can you show me where he said that? I don't recall hearing that his year. In the past I recall them stating that but it was only for the particular WWDC not a blanket statement. They intro'd the G5 Powermac at a WWDC.
Tomaz
Aug 7, 04:38 PM
I'll have to ask my firendly IT guy, but how does the end user access shadow copies?
B
As far as I know he can't, that's the difference. IT has to restore the file for you.
Still, nothing fundamentally new, and definitely not Vista 2.0... ;)
B
As far as I know he can't, that's the difference. IT has to restore the file for you.
Still, nothing fundamentally new, and definitely not Vista 2.0... ;)
Mac Kiwi
Jul 21, 07:24 AM
I've already got one. A SuperMac C500 to be precise! (Well, actually it's an Apus 2000, but in the US it was the C500).
SuperMac was the brandname UMAX used for thier Mac clones. Check out
http://home.earthlink.net/~supermac_insider/
:)
Ok SuperMac is definitely out then :)
SuperMac was the brandname UMAX used for thier Mac clones. Check out
http://home.earthlink.net/~supermac_insider/
:)
Ok SuperMac is definitely out then :)
ZildjianKX
Sep 19, 01:53 AM
If all MBPs came with a gig of RAM standard, DL DVD drives, and a better graphics card (and Merom CPU), I would be thrilled.
kenaustus
Jul 20, 08:52 PM
If Intel designates Kentsfield as a desktop processor it will make its way into Mac Pros as fast as the competition can deliver their desktop versions. Apple is now one of the "Intel Big Boys" and there will be continual (internal & external) pressure not to be left behind.
I would also think Apple is getting ready for Kentsfield - they have had the same pre-release information that the other Intel Big Boys have received.
I think that the surprise will be next month when Steve J is talking about Leopard. He'll mention something like, "You might have read a bit about a new chip from Intel called Kentsfield. You might like to know that Leopard is designed to take full advantage of Kentsfield when it's released." He really doesn't need to say anything else - that alone will drive MS nuts.
With a quad core arriving rather fast I believe that Apple may be looking at the headless range. Right now there is only the mini and (upcoming) Pro. Lots of room in between the two and that room gets bigger with Kentsfield. It presents a very good argument for a mid range headless to fill the gap.
SInce the mini has been out for a while there will be a lot of users that "switched" to a Mac because of the mini and now went something more powerful - without loosing their investment in their display. If the Pro is overkill then APple is going to loose the upgrade. Others, like me, use a PB with a large display - mine is the 23". I don't want a huge tower under the table and I don't see the value of moving to a mini. I'll reach for the credit card after Kentsfield is released IF there is a mid-range that excites me.
I would also think Apple is getting ready for Kentsfield - they have had the same pre-release information that the other Intel Big Boys have received.
I think that the surprise will be next month when Steve J is talking about Leopard. He'll mention something like, "You might have read a bit about a new chip from Intel called Kentsfield. You might like to know that Leopard is designed to take full advantage of Kentsfield when it's released." He really doesn't need to say anything else - that alone will drive MS nuts.
With a quad core arriving rather fast I believe that Apple may be looking at the headless range. Right now there is only the mini and (upcoming) Pro. Lots of room in between the two and that room gets bigger with Kentsfield. It presents a very good argument for a mid range headless to fill the gap.
SInce the mini has been out for a while there will be a lot of users that "switched" to a Mac because of the mini and now went something more powerful - without loosing their investment in their display. If the Pro is overkill then APple is going to loose the upgrade. Others, like me, use a PB with a large display - mine is the 23". I don't want a huge tower under the table and I don't see the value of moving to a mini. I'll reach for the credit card after Kentsfield is released IF there is a mid-range that excites me.
alent1234
Apr 20, 07:37 AM
I'm surprised to see iPhones have outsold iPod Touches by so much; I've never really considered the figures but just assumed that there would be way more iPod Touches around than iPhones.
most ipods i see are Nano's for people to listen to music on the train home. why buy a Touch when it's useless unless you have wifi. it's just a lower priced SKU for apple to defend the iphone market share
most ipods i see are Nano's for people to listen to music on the train home. why buy a Touch when it's useless unless you have wifi. it's just a lower priced SKU for apple to defend the iphone market share
2IS
Apr 6, 10:37 AM
For most people the ipad is more useful than the air anyway imo. Yes i owned an air, the ipad 1, and now the ipad 2 and the air was just a watered down macbook pro more than the ipad is a scaled up ipod touch
More portable yes. More useful, not by a long shot.
More portable yes. More useful, not by a long shot.
DStaal
Sep 13, 11:12 AM
Sun has released this as Open Source. so it will get ported around to other OSes. I hear Sun's Dtrace is already in Leopard
Great. Um... What's their patent licensing scheme on this? (Since they proudly announce they've patented parts of it...)
Great. Um... What's their patent licensing scheme on this? (Since they proudly announce they've patented parts of it...)
dscuber9000
Mar 31, 05:12 PM
Android is the next windows. So many drivers, so much requirements, so many configurations, so little memory. Fortunately Apple's provided a better sandbox.
I really do think that Android/Windows is a good comparison. At least, in terms of getting Android out there on as many different phones as possible. And while that certainly worked, it doesn't really mean that Android is the best OS because it is slightly different depending on the hardware it is on. Which brings up a clear advantage of iOS: It's written specifically for the hardware it is on.
I really do think that Android/Windows is a good comparison. At least, in terms of getting Android out there on as many different phones as possible. And while that certainly worked, it doesn't really mean that Android is the best OS because it is slightly different depending on the hardware it is on. Which brings up a clear advantage of iOS: It's written specifically for the hardware it is on.
�algiris
Mar 31, 03:14 PM
Ditto. Gruber is as much a blow hard as anyone can possibly be. He's such an arrogant, self-absorbing prick of a human being, without an un-biased bone in his body. He is the epitome of Apple fanboy.
He's self-loving jerk everyone knows that, but what's even worse that he's more often right than wrong. That makes fandroids go mental.
He's self-loving jerk everyone knows that, but what's even worse that he's more often right than wrong. That makes fandroids go mental.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
robbyx
Apr 25, 04:29 PM
Normally I would argue that the customer doesn't have a right to a lot of things. But in this case - if you bought a device and it is tracking you (I'm not saying it is or it isn't) - the customer does have a right to know.
This (sort of) reminds me of how now your are legally allowed to get a free credit report once a year to determine whether or not it's correct. Companies used to make a fortune charging for something that people, inherently had the right to know.
Where does these RIGHTS you speak of come from? Frankly, I don't know if it's a right or not, but I hear the word "right" used a lot these days by people who have no idea what it means.
Much ado about nothing.
This (sort of) reminds me of how now your are legally allowed to get a free credit report once a year to determine whether or not it's correct. Companies used to make a fortune charging for something that people, inherently had the right to know.
Where does these RIGHTS you speak of come from? Frankly, I don't know if it's a right or not, but I hear the word "right" used a lot these days by people who have no idea what it means.
Much ado about nothing.
mac1984user
Apr 27, 08:40 AM
if any of you are concerned about being tracked - why on earth would you buy any product that has a GPS in it (all computers cash info) and why on earth would you buy a cell phone - the towers know almost exactly when (which apple doesn't know) and where you are? The reaction to this news is stupid.
I pretty much agree with you, but I can see where others are coming from on this one. Mobile phones and computers are, in this age, a necessity. There's very little point in denying that. Still, people want to maintain their privacy. I think some people thought it was possible to maintain privacy while owning necessary items. You can't expect someone not to buy a computer or phone. That's not a solution. I respect the idea that people enjoy anonymity and I do too. It's nearly impossible in this world, but what little can be done is worth pursuing in my opinion, so people's expectations, while perhaps a bit naive are not absurd.
I pretty much agree with you, but I can see where others are coming from on this one. Mobile phones and computers are, in this age, a necessity. There's very little point in denying that. Still, people want to maintain their privacy. I think some people thought it was possible to maintain privacy while owning necessary items. You can't expect someone not to buy a computer or phone. That's not a solution. I respect the idea that people enjoy anonymity and I do too. It's nearly impossible in this world, but what little can be done is worth pursuing in my opinion, so people's expectations, while perhaps a bit naive are not absurd.
�algiris
Mar 31, 02:59 PM
so what Apple FAD are you talking about?
It's technology when it's Google.
It's a FAD when it's Apple?
What the **** are you talking about?
He is extremely biased.
It's technology when it's Google.
It's a FAD when it's Apple?
What the **** are you talking about?
He is extremely biased.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 09:47 PM
How would you burn two DVDs at once Eldorian? I don't know of any software that lets you do this do you? :confused:
I agree it would be nice. But I can't imagine how.Uh, you can use Finder if you wanted to. Just put in two discs, drag the files on, and hit burn. I'm talking data. I should have tried burning to images last night using Disk Utility. Well, I could have but one at x2 and the other at x16. :D
I agree it would be nice. But I can't imagine how.Uh, you can use Finder if you wanted to. Just put in two discs, drag the files on, and hit burn. I'm talking data. I should have tried burning to images last night using Disk Utility. Well, I could have but one at x2 and the other at x16. :D
BRLawyer
Aug 6, 02:05 PM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Great joke, thanks very much...in the same line as Tiger Computer Dealers, right?
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Great joke, thanks very much...in the same line as Tiger Computer Dealers, right?
Squire
Aug 8, 05:52 AM
Okay, after reading the ten pages, here are my thoughts:
I think one of the biggest things is the iChat remote desktop functionality. I have long been wanting very basic Apple Remote Desktop abilities in OS X. It is the perfect way to help a friend or family member troubleshoot a computer problem or teach them how to do a particular task.
Now, it seems, in iChat, all they have to do is share their screen, and you can take over! (If I am reading the description correctly!)
This is huge, in my opinion. I even considered buying Remote Desktop last year to help my computer-challenged family members with certain issues. Excellent-- yet totally unexpected-- development. (Strange that they didn't demo this feature during the keynote, though.)
Oh yeah, Time Machine is cool.
And this is the other biggie for me. Idiot proof and, in my opinion, truly necessary. Sure, you hope you'll never need it but it's the same with insurance. (And to those whining about the space theme, don't worry. Someone-- either Apple or a 3rd party developer-- will make it so the theme can be changed. Personally, I like it.)
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/accessibility.html
From this site:
Closed captioning
QuickTime currently supports closed captioning by including a text track alongside audio and video content. But improved QuickTime support will automatically display the CEA-608 closed captioning text standard in analog broadcasts in the U.S.
-----
Anyone think this means support for Closed Captioning in iTunes video downloads? As a hearing-impaired Mac-User, the lack of subtitles/captions in the TV shows is the one thing keeping me from buying a bunch of them. I hope they address this issue soon...
Good point. I would love that if they ever decided to make TV shows available to those outside the US.
* Mail: The advancements are welcome. I, also, send emails to myself all the time. Good idea.
* Spaces: Well, not a huge feature for me. I think Expose does a good enough job.
* Dashboard: I like the web clip thing.
* Spotlight: Not much new there for my use.
* iCal: I never use it but now that the To Do list option is there, I might.
* Accessibility: I think the new voice is more important than some may think. Having an OS voice that sounds, well, real, might have some interesting applications.
* 64-bit: Depends on apps, doesn't it?
* Core Animation: Now, is this something the average Joe can utilize or is it for pros? Looks cool, nonetheless.
Enhanced iChat: Nifty new features, but here's the deal: Apple needs to look beyond Cupertino and survey the IM landscape that exists outside of the US, because it's huge. Most PC-using kids and twenty-somethings overseas live and breath and depend on two kinds of software, an internet browser and an IM client. Overseas, Yahoo and MS Messenger are all that's used and the features that are provided by those clients are heavily depended upon by the overseas youth culture because they were born and raised on that stuff. If iChat (or any other client) at a minimum can't provide support for Yahoo and MS Messenger protocols with absolute one for one feature parity with PC's, you can forget about selling a Mac (or at least the Mac OS) to these kids, because it's just an absolute deal-killer without IM support that they are used to. The IM culture overseas is just that big, that integrated, and they (along with their IM friends) don't use AOL and they don't use .Mac and they aren't going to. The IM scene overseas and it's dependence on MS Messenger and Yahoo is practically a youth culture in and of itself now and ignoring that is simply bad business for Apple at this point.
Of all the iChat comments on these 10 pages, this one is the most significant. Apple has to get together with Microsoft and Yahoo! to work this out. I know, like, 3 people who use AOL. and I don't want a 3rd party patch job. (I know some of you swear by Adium but I really like iChat.)
Finally, it appears that some of these make features included in the .mac service redundant. Specifically, Backup (displaced by Time Machine) and, to a lesser extent, iCards (now challenged by the stationery features in Mail). This is in direct contrast to MWSF '06 where it seemed that .Mac would take on a larger role.
-Squire
I think one of the biggest things is the iChat remote desktop functionality. I have long been wanting very basic Apple Remote Desktop abilities in OS X. It is the perfect way to help a friend or family member troubleshoot a computer problem or teach them how to do a particular task.
Now, it seems, in iChat, all they have to do is share their screen, and you can take over! (If I am reading the description correctly!)
This is huge, in my opinion. I even considered buying Remote Desktop last year to help my computer-challenged family members with certain issues. Excellent-- yet totally unexpected-- development. (Strange that they didn't demo this feature during the keynote, though.)
Oh yeah, Time Machine is cool.
And this is the other biggie for me. Idiot proof and, in my opinion, truly necessary. Sure, you hope you'll never need it but it's the same with insurance. (And to those whining about the space theme, don't worry. Someone-- either Apple or a 3rd party developer-- will make it so the theme can be changed. Personally, I like it.)
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/accessibility.html
From this site:
Closed captioning
QuickTime currently supports closed captioning by including a text track alongside audio and video content. But improved QuickTime support will automatically display the CEA-608 closed captioning text standard in analog broadcasts in the U.S.
-----
Anyone think this means support for Closed Captioning in iTunes video downloads? As a hearing-impaired Mac-User, the lack of subtitles/captions in the TV shows is the one thing keeping me from buying a bunch of them. I hope they address this issue soon...
Good point. I would love that if they ever decided to make TV shows available to those outside the US.
* Mail: The advancements are welcome. I, also, send emails to myself all the time. Good idea.
* Spaces: Well, not a huge feature for me. I think Expose does a good enough job.
* Dashboard: I like the web clip thing.
* Spotlight: Not much new there for my use.
* iCal: I never use it but now that the To Do list option is there, I might.
* Accessibility: I think the new voice is more important than some may think. Having an OS voice that sounds, well, real, might have some interesting applications.
* 64-bit: Depends on apps, doesn't it?
* Core Animation: Now, is this something the average Joe can utilize or is it for pros? Looks cool, nonetheless.
Enhanced iChat: Nifty new features, but here's the deal: Apple needs to look beyond Cupertino and survey the IM landscape that exists outside of the US, because it's huge. Most PC-using kids and twenty-somethings overseas live and breath and depend on two kinds of software, an internet browser and an IM client. Overseas, Yahoo and MS Messenger are all that's used and the features that are provided by those clients are heavily depended upon by the overseas youth culture because they were born and raised on that stuff. If iChat (or any other client) at a minimum can't provide support for Yahoo and MS Messenger protocols with absolute one for one feature parity with PC's, you can forget about selling a Mac (or at least the Mac OS) to these kids, because it's just an absolute deal-killer without IM support that they are used to. The IM culture overseas is just that big, that integrated, and they (along with their IM friends) don't use AOL and they don't use .Mac and they aren't going to. The IM scene overseas and it's dependence on MS Messenger and Yahoo is practically a youth culture in and of itself now and ignoring that is simply bad business for Apple at this point.
Of all the iChat comments on these 10 pages, this one is the most significant. Apple has to get together with Microsoft and Yahoo! to work this out. I know, like, 3 people who use AOL. and I don't want a 3rd party patch job. (I know some of you swear by Adium but I really like iChat.)
Finally, it appears that some of these make features included in the .mac service redundant. Specifically, Backup (displaced by Time Machine) and, to a lesser extent, iCards (now challenged by the stationery features in Mail). This is in direct contrast to MWSF '06 where it seemed that .Mac would take on a larger role.
-Squire
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 04:07 PM
I think there are several people who have felt "screwed" by their wireless company, regardless of which company they chose to sign with. I have used Cingular from day one of my cell usage, and I have nothing but good things to say about their service. Of course, you're 4x more likely to get screwed, I guess. ;)
I guess you are lucky. My wife had Cingular (old TDMA plan). She wanted to get a GSM phone and bought one off Amazon. We went to a local Cingular store (not a Cingular AUTHORIZED store, but a bona fide Cingular store) and the manager there cussed her out when she asked him to help her port her old number over to the new phone... all because he was mad that she didn't buy the phone from his store.
A few months later I received a bill with a $1395 charge for a 440MB data transfer that supposedly happened on a Saturday morning at 3am. If I wanted to download that much, which would be stupid since I already had SBC DSL, I would've just paid an extra $50 to upgrade to unlimited data. Everyone I talked to with Cingular were rude except for 1 tech guy and 1 person from the President's Office. But they still refused to do anything about the obviously bogus charge... and I refused to pay. :)
On my team at work, there are 22 Indian developers who have T-Mo and/or Cingular. All of the Cingular customers are either switching to Sprint (and getting the hybrid phone) or moving to T-Mobile. All of them complain about the rude customer service.
Back in 2004 or can't remember, some consumer magazine had Cingular rated deadlast in customer satisifaction. T-Mobile was #1... but sadly their satisfaction rating was only like 60-some-%, IIRC.
YMMV. But I've found Sprint to be the best. Customer Service is pretty good, but not as good as T-Mo. Coverage is decent, but not as good as VZW or Cingular. But while they may not be the best at anyone thing, they seem to be #2 in just about every category.
I guess you are lucky. My wife had Cingular (old TDMA plan). She wanted to get a GSM phone and bought one off Amazon. We went to a local Cingular store (not a Cingular AUTHORIZED store, but a bona fide Cingular store) and the manager there cussed her out when she asked him to help her port her old number over to the new phone... all because he was mad that she didn't buy the phone from his store.
A few months later I received a bill with a $1395 charge for a 440MB data transfer that supposedly happened on a Saturday morning at 3am. If I wanted to download that much, which would be stupid since I already had SBC DSL, I would've just paid an extra $50 to upgrade to unlimited data. Everyone I talked to with Cingular were rude except for 1 tech guy and 1 person from the President's Office. But they still refused to do anything about the obviously bogus charge... and I refused to pay. :)
On my team at work, there are 22 Indian developers who have T-Mo and/or Cingular. All of the Cingular customers are either switching to Sprint (and getting the hybrid phone) or moving to T-Mobile. All of them complain about the rude customer service.
Back in 2004 or can't remember, some consumer magazine had Cingular rated deadlast in customer satisifaction. T-Mobile was #1... but sadly their satisfaction rating was only like 60-some-%, IIRC.
YMMV. But I've found Sprint to be the best. Customer Service is pretty good, but not as good as T-Mo. Coverage is decent, but not as good as VZW or Cingular. But while they may not be the best at anyone thing, they seem to be #2 in just about every category.
Macaroony
Mar 5, 02:53 AM
I never said heterosexual people should stop having sex and produce children, I don't know where you got that from. Next time, please be more clear about who and what you're quoting and what your exact response is. Thank you.
Logic is such a rational thing. The world population is exponentially increasing. 50 years ago, the estimated number was at 6 billion, 10 years ago, it jumped the 7-billion mark and in 2050 they are predicting the world population to reach a staggering amount of 10 billion.
Society isn't going anywhere - no matter how many gays you have out there. Straight men will find dozens of fertile women to makes babies with - wanted and unwanted.
I recently saw a report about homeless children in India who aren't even recognized as citizens and are having tremendous problems getting by day by day. There should be programs that integrate these children into society and I'm certain that many gays are more willing to do so then straight people.
And next time, please give more than one-sentence answers, it is hard getting a deeper understanding of your world view and logic. After all, this is a forum and not Twitter.
Logic is such a rational thing. The world population is exponentially increasing. 50 years ago, the estimated number was at 6 billion, 10 years ago, it jumped the 7-billion mark and in 2050 they are predicting the world population to reach a staggering amount of 10 billion.
Society isn't going anywhere - no matter how many gays you have out there. Straight men will find dozens of fertile women to makes babies with - wanted and unwanted.
I recently saw a report about homeless children in India who aren't even recognized as citizens and are having tremendous problems getting by day by day. There should be programs that integrate these children into society and I'm certain that many gays are more willing to do so then straight people.
And next time, please give more than one-sentence answers, it is hard getting a deeper understanding of your world view and logic. After all, this is a forum and not Twitter.
Porchland
Aug 7, 03:23 PM
The photo templates in Mail look pretty nifty. The ability to crop and scale inside a pre-defined space would make a nice new feature for iPhoto books, so I suspect we may see more of this feature in iPhoto when iLife refreshes in January.
The improved functionality in Mail looks great!
The improved functionality in Mail looks great!
moochermaulucci
Apr 8, 12:50 AM
How does that create demand? Instead of actually getting the sale, you deny a sale and hope it "creates demand" so that they'll come back and buy it in fear? Especially considering that they could have just purchased it in the first place and avoided the whole issue. Actually selling out the product and then having no more available in stock would create demand AND generate revenue. Doing what they did would generate SOME revenue and likely cause customers to look elsewhere for iPads.
Edit: This isn't to say that I don't recognize the concept of reaching quotas for the day and saving products for the next day's quota. That's a different argument. What I'm referring to is that this is likely not about demand but about selfishly wanting to meet quotas and turning away customers in the process. Not creating demand. It's immoral, but business/retail and morality don't always work so well together.
Now, now, we'll have none of that common sense in these here forums.:D
Well said, btw.
Edit: This isn't to say that I don't recognize the concept of reaching quotas for the day and saving products for the next day's quota. That's a different argument. What I'm referring to is that this is likely not about demand but about selfishly wanting to meet quotas and turning away customers in the process. Not creating demand. It's immoral, but business/retail and morality don't always work so well together.
Now, now, we'll have none of that common sense in these here forums.:D
Well said, btw.
shamino
Jul 14, 05:13 PM
What about support for 2 30" cinema displays? You need two video cards to do that, right?
Nope. The GeForce 6800 card Apple offered on their AGP-based G5 towers had two dual-link DVI ports.
Today's high-end PCIe offering - an ATI Quadro 4500 - also does, but it consumes two slots (one card, but the fan is too large to allow anything in the slot next to it.)
Looking at PC product offerings by ATI (http://www.ati.com/products/workstation/fireglmatrix.html), you can see that they also offer video cards with two dual-link DVI ports on a single card. You can even get this on a Radeon X1900 series card (http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx1900/radeonx1900xtx/specs.html).
Given that this is easily available for the PC world, there's no reason why it can't also be made available for the Mac (aside from someone deciding to write the device driver, of course.)
Nope. The GeForce 6800 card Apple offered on their AGP-based G5 towers had two dual-link DVI ports.
Today's high-end PCIe offering - an ATI Quadro 4500 - also does, but it consumes two slots (one card, but the fan is too large to allow anything in the slot next to it.)
Looking at PC product offerings by ATI (http://www.ati.com/products/workstation/fireglmatrix.html), you can see that they also offer video cards with two dual-link DVI ports on a single card. You can even get this on a Radeon X1900 series card (http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx1900/radeonx1900xtx/specs.html).
Given that this is easily available for the PC world, there's no reason why it can't also be made available for the Mac (aside from someone deciding to write the device driver, of course.)
k995
Apr 20, 06:08 AM
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
No they werent, what apple describes was already shows and build BEFORE iphone. If any apple basicly admits they copied it themselves and should get sued.
No they werent, what apple describes was already shows and build BEFORE iphone. If any apple basicly admits they copied it themselves and should get sued.
