Fiveos22
Aug 6, 09:52 PM
Nothing they haven't done before. Like the "Redmond, start your photocopiers" thing for Tiger. And Redmond did exactly that, it seems. ;)
--Eric
They did at WWDC '04 (when Tiger was introduced) with slogans like "Redmond, Start Your Photocopiers" and the word "Longhorn" in the Spotlight search field. ;)
http://www.preshaa.com/archive/work/ninja.jpg
/ninja'd!
//sorry, I had to
--Eric
They did at WWDC '04 (when Tiger was introduced) with slogans like "Redmond, Start Your Photocopiers" and the word "Longhorn" in the Spotlight search field. ;)
http://www.preshaa.com/archive/work/ninja.jpg
/ninja'd!
//sorry, I had to
Wild-Bill
Jan 12, 02:17 PM
"Macbook Air" is an awful, awful name.
RaceTripper
Jan 2, 04:52 PM
MINI John Cooper Works 2009
Mods include OZ Alleggerita HLT wheels, Yokohama Advan Neova tires, and Alta CAI & turbo inlet hose.
Makes around 230 HP (which is not bad for 2600 lb. curb weight).
http://racetripper.com/images/JCW/JCW-20090605.jpg
Mods include OZ Alleggerita HLT wheels, Yokohama Advan Neova tires, and Alta CAI & turbo inlet hose.
Makes around 230 HP (which is not bad for 2600 lb. curb weight).
http://racetripper.com/images/JCW/JCW-20090605.jpg
Storm9
Oct 12, 12:24 AM
thanks. when it gets colder here, i'll start doing the bigadv units again. then the points should really add up. if they keep the units going.
What are bigadv units? and how do I run them?
I am currently running two instances using:
./fah6 -local -smp -verbosity 9
do I just add the flag ' -bigadv ' to my command above?
PS: I have a 2.53ghz MBP
What are bigadv units? and how do I run them?
I am currently running two instances using:
./fah6 -local -smp -verbosity 9
do I just add the flag ' -bigadv ' to my command above?
PS: I have a 2.53ghz MBP
Branskins
Apr 1, 12:58 PM
Wow this dev preview runs amazingly well! I cannot wait until Lion is released!
gugy
Nov 27, 01:49 PM
20" is the new 17", duh. :cool:
yeah, I agree.
17 is so small.
well if it costs $300, why not?
yeah, I agree.
17 is so small.
well if it costs $300, why not?
kasei
Sep 6, 05:30 PM
It looks like I'm going to have to buy one of these and hook it up to my entertainment system. Good by clunky old DVDs and hello DVD library on a Mac Mini.
jgould
Feb 27, 09:52 PM
Looks like you do a fair bit of typing on that thing!
My old one started looking like that but then Apple replaced it with a new one. I bought a keyboard cover. Not because I hate shiny keys, but because hair and stuff was falling in the keys.
My keyboard on my White 2006 MacBook would get like that, and then the top case would crack and would be replaced. It didn't stay like that for long...
My old one started looking like that but then Apple replaced it with a new one. I bought a keyboard cover. Not because I hate shiny keys, but because hair and stuff was falling in the keys.
My keyboard on my White 2006 MacBook would get like that, and then the top case would crack and would be replaced. It didn't stay like that for long...
comacnut
Feb 18, 02:58 PM
New work machine.
http://web.me.com/dudleyclint/Site_3/Blank_files/P1010027.jpg
http://web.me.com/dudleyclint/Site_3/Blank_files/P1010027.jpg
moobookpro
Oct 23, 11:05 PM
yes, my macbook pro will not support 64 bit instructions. i was fully aware of that when i bought it.
leopard is confirmed to be 64 bit all the way through -ie the user interface is as well. i do agree that 64 bit GUI applications will surface but you can't say that all 32 bit machines will be massively disadvantaged and become redundant.
what you have implied is that the 64 bit thing will be so massive and make so much of a difference to your computing experience that a 64 bit notebook computer is essential.
btw - the g5 has been out for years. umm wait. it's 64 bit too :rolleyes: where are the MAINSTREAM apps that utilise the 64 bit facility of tiger??
aussie_geek
Considering we are talking about a Pro machine I hope you are not refering to "consumer" when you say "mainstream". If so, then get a clue. Fact of the matter is, 64-bit will improve the experience across the board but specifically it will aid the intended users of this machine most: pros. There is a Pro there for a reason. But I'll bite: I'm pretty sure Final Cut Pro, Aperture, Logic and Photoshop (I could go on, but to help you save face I'll stop here) are all mainstream pro apps and will all definitely benefit from having an OS built to do more than simply accomodate 64-bit, but actually utilize it properly. Not to further strike you down but the only place that 64-bit instructions are possible (at least on the Intel side) is in Unix terminal apps in Tiger at the moment. That would seem to answer your question a bit. I'm pretty sure the people that this machine is targeted towards will appreciate the benefits of 64-bit processing more than I could summarize (and way more than you could refute).
To answer someone else's question, the current Core 2 Duo processor and accompanying chipset supports EM64T enabling 64-bit processing.
leopard is confirmed to be 64 bit all the way through -ie the user interface is as well. i do agree that 64 bit GUI applications will surface but you can't say that all 32 bit machines will be massively disadvantaged and become redundant.
what you have implied is that the 64 bit thing will be so massive and make so much of a difference to your computing experience that a 64 bit notebook computer is essential.
btw - the g5 has been out for years. umm wait. it's 64 bit too :rolleyes: where are the MAINSTREAM apps that utilise the 64 bit facility of tiger??
aussie_geek
Considering we are talking about a Pro machine I hope you are not refering to "consumer" when you say "mainstream". If so, then get a clue. Fact of the matter is, 64-bit will improve the experience across the board but specifically it will aid the intended users of this machine most: pros. There is a Pro there for a reason. But I'll bite: I'm pretty sure Final Cut Pro, Aperture, Logic and Photoshop (I could go on, but to help you save face I'll stop here) are all mainstream pro apps and will all definitely benefit from having an OS built to do more than simply accomodate 64-bit, but actually utilize it properly. Not to further strike you down but the only place that 64-bit instructions are possible (at least on the Intel side) is in Unix terminal apps in Tiger at the moment. That would seem to answer your question a bit. I'm pretty sure the people that this machine is targeted towards will appreciate the benefits of 64-bit processing more than I could summarize (and way more than you could refute).
To answer someone else's question, the current Core 2 Duo processor and accompanying chipset supports EM64T enabling 64-bit processing.
yukyuklee
Feb 25, 05:31 PM
Hey Veg,
Where did you get that lamp?
Where did you get that lamp?
Rodimus Prime
Mar 19, 11:56 AM
Must we get involved in this? Can't France do something for once by themselves, or any other european nations for that matter? When was the last time they even fired a weapon? You know, the taliban were once known as freedom fighters too. I'm so sick of these countries, let them self destruct, maybe some day they will choose to civilize themselves. Please, no more US to the rescue, and then they all wonder why many Americans have a feeling of exceptionalism. :rolleyes:
Umm kind of hard to do this with out the US and its military power. My understanding is the US it mostly going to provide support for it but not as much of the combat forces. The support being things like aerial refueling as we have the most of those flying gas tanks. They will circle over the Mediterranean Sea refueling planes going to and from missions. Kind of key to extend the range of the fighters and Fighter bombers.
Other thing the US I believe will provide is cruise missals as that they can launch from the Mediterranean Sea. This mostly to take out the Air Defenses. They might provide a few bombers to help take out artillery
US is not taking the lead. But is providing support. US is going to have the other countries really provide most of the planes needed for this.
Umm kind of hard to do this with out the US and its military power. My understanding is the US it mostly going to provide support for it but not as much of the combat forces. The support being things like aerial refueling as we have the most of those flying gas tanks. They will circle over the Mediterranean Sea refueling planes going to and from missions. Kind of key to extend the range of the fighters and Fighter bombers.
Other thing the US I believe will provide is cruise missals as that they can launch from the Mediterranean Sea. This mostly to take out the Air Defenses. They might provide a few bombers to help take out artillery
US is not taking the lead. But is providing support. US is going to have the other countries really provide most of the planes needed for this.
mKTank
Nov 30, 12:04 PM
The only thing that bugs me, is that I quite believe that iOS fakes cell reception. For example, having a FULL 3G signal could be anywhere from 500k-2mbps, where my old phone, aircard, others peoples phones, show 1-2 bars, maybe 3. I get the same speeds with it as I do with my aircard in particular places, but the iPhone shows a stronger signal?
So while it appears to have better reception, I don't think it actually does.
That said, I've never dropped a call. It's definitely no worse than any other device, I just don't think it reports accurately.
Pre-Antennagate it used to fake the signal a lot.
But as of current firmware, it's probably one of the most honest indicators out there.
The iPhone 4's antenna does provide stronger signals than most other phones. It just drops the signal when held a certain way, but generally it gives a stronger signal than other antennas.
So while it appears to have better reception, I don't think it actually does.
That said, I've never dropped a call. It's definitely no worse than any other device, I just don't think it reports accurately.
Pre-Antennagate it used to fake the signal a lot.
But as of current firmware, it's probably one of the most honest indicators out there.
The iPhone 4's antenna does provide stronger signals than most other phones. It just drops the signal when held a certain way, but generally it gives a stronger signal than other antennas.
Aeolius
Apr 26, 12:49 PM
How long until Apple releases a product called "Amazon", then? Named after the river, of course.
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
dmaxdmax
Nov 29, 09:16 AM
I was in a Brookstone at a pretty upscale mall where the manager told me they were selling well - much better than their other MP3 players. Brookstone doesn't carry iPods so take it for what it's worth.
DrEasy
Mar 23, 02:08 AM
With a bigger hard drive, it would be conceivable to think of the iPod classic as a portable hard drive that you could also use for Time Machine backups. I would have a greater incentive in backing up my files if I could use my iPod that is always nearby. It would back up my files as I'm recharging it.
Or look at it the other way: there's plenty of portable hard drives in the market, but how many of you carry one "just in case"? Whereas if the portable hard drive doubles up as a very competent MP3 player, you will always have it with you.
Now there should be some data protection scheme so that if someone steals your iPod they can't use all your data. Encryption + some kind of pairing with your machines should do the job.
I know I'd buy such a thing...
Or look at it the other way: there's plenty of portable hard drives in the market, but how many of you carry one "just in case"? Whereas if the portable hard drive doubles up as a very competent MP3 player, you will always have it with you.
Now there should be some data protection scheme so that if someone steals your iPod they can't use all your data. Encryption + some kind of pairing with your machines should do the job.
I know I'd buy such a thing...
MacMan86
Apr 23, 12:56 PM
An undocumented source proves your point, but Apple makes no reply to the allegations? I thought it was a "bug" in the software? And some police departments have known about it for a while too.
Who needs an undocumented source when you could watch WWDC 2010 Session 115 'Using Core Location in iOS 4' at 14 minutes and 30 seconds in and hear Morgan Grainger, a man partly responsible for the Core Location framework in the iPhone SDK (read: all location functionality on iPhone) describe how the iPhone caches nearby cell tower information to help the device find its location in the circumstances above.
Given that we have the engineer partly behind this framework explain that the iPhone caches this information, we know that the iPhone has to be storing this information somewhere. This 'consolidated.db' matches the words in the video perfectly, making it no great assumption that this is the file which fulfils this purpose.
Granted you don't sound like a developer and so won't have access to these videos, but any other developer could do the same and corroborate this.
It being a bug is simply a rumour which has no links to an official source. I'm far more inclined to believe the words of a guy who wrote the code that collects this information in the first place
Who needs an undocumented source when you could watch WWDC 2010 Session 115 'Using Core Location in iOS 4' at 14 minutes and 30 seconds in and hear Morgan Grainger, a man partly responsible for the Core Location framework in the iPhone SDK (read: all location functionality on iPhone) describe how the iPhone caches nearby cell tower information to help the device find its location in the circumstances above.
Given that we have the engineer partly behind this framework explain that the iPhone caches this information, we know that the iPhone has to be storing this information somewhere. This 'consolidated.db' matches the words in the video perfectly, making it no great assumption that this is the file which fulfils this purpose.
Granted you don't sound like a developer and so won't have access to these videos, but any other developer could do the same and corroborate this.
It being a bug is simply a rumour which has no links to an official source. I'm far more inclined to believe the words of a guy who wrote the code that collects this information in the first place
emaja
Apr 2, 08:49 PM
Nice ad, but I am getting sick of Apple using "magical" to describe the iPad. It just sounds silly.
Zaap
Jan 22, 11:29 AM
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/5972/01sidelg.jpg
2011 CRV-EX
2011 CRV-EX
jxyama
Mar 19, 11:11 AM
You take the low end model, subtract the cost for the monitor and you have a computer that is sitting in the $500.00 - $600.00 range. Many people already have monitors and if not, you can find a decent one for relatively low cost.
since CRT monitors cost next to nothing these days, eMac price can't be lowered that much even if it was headless. that will just eat into the profits. and why give the money for the monitor to other companies?
apparently, apple's marketing dept. has concluded that the sale of AIO units with bigger margin turns more profit than that can be expected from increased sale of headless units with smaller margin. and as long as apple's profitable, there's no reason to argue that their strategy is wrong...
eMac and iMac are for people who want to take home a box, open it up, plug in the power and start using them. they are NOT meant for people who want the absolute cheapest computers. right now, apple is not interested in making that kind of "cheapest" computers... nor has they ever been. the only time that happened was when they allowed clones and that certainly went nowhere because Macs were suddenly a commodity and apple took a major hit as "premium" hardware company.
mind you, apple could change their mind and offer such a headless machine in the future, if their dept. sees that the computer market is changing. so while you may well be 100% correct in principle, apple hasn't had to or is yet to find a reason to offer such a headless.
since CRT monitors cost next to nothing these days, eMac price can't be lowered that much even if it was headless. that will just eat into the profits. and why give the money for the monitor to other companies?
apparently, apple's marketing dept. has concluded that the sale of AIO units with bigger margin turns more profit than that can be expected from increased sale of headless units with smaller margin. and as long as apple's profitable, there's no reason to argue that their strategy is wrong...
eMac and iMac are for people who want to take home a box, open it up, plug in the power and start using them. they are NOT meant for people who want the absolute cheapest computers. right now, apple is not interested in making that kind of "cheapest" computers... nor has they ever been. the only time that happened was when they allowed clones and that certainly went nowhere because Macs were suddenly a commodity and apple took a major hit as "premium" hardware company.
mind you, apple could change their mind and offer such a headless machine in the future, if their dept. sees that the computer market is changing. so while you may well be 100% correct in principle, apple hasn't had to or is yet to find a reason to offer such a headless.
Tomorrow
Apr 20, 03:46 PM
Were your other cars manual? The Camaro isn't helping your argument any more than the Lotus is helping mine.
;)
What argument? My main point is that I hate driving, and a manual transmission doesn't help me enjoy it any more than an automatic.
;)
What argument? My main point is that I hate driving, and a manual transmission doesn't help me enjoy it any more than an automatic.
Evangelion
Jul 14, 07:26 AM
It'll take a while before B-spec becomes too slow for web surfing ;)
But there are lots of people who use the wireless for more than just web-surfing. Hell, WLAN is used at my workplace quite extensively in place of wired ethernet. That was the whole point of my comment. I (among others) use network-connectivity (wired or otherwise) for other things besides web-surfing
As to just web-surfing.... In the time of few years my internet-connection has moved from 512KB to 8MB. I could go to 12 or 24MB right now. The speed-increase has been FAST.
But there are lots of people who use the wireless for more than just web-surfing. Hell, WLAN is used at my workplace quite extensively in place of wired ethernet. That was the whole point of my comment. I (among others) use network-connectivity (wired or otherwise) for other things besides web-surfing
As to just web-surfing.... In the time of few years my internet-connection has moved from 512KB to 8MB. I could go to 12 or 24MB right now. The speed-increase has been FAST.
gnasher729
Aug 29, 04:28 PM
you can be certain that the price-difference is there. since merom and yonah are 1:1 compatible, why would anyone use yonah istead of merom? but since the two will be sold side-by-side, yonah obviously has some benefits that merom does not have. and that benefit is most likely price.
Who says Intel will keep selling Yonahs for long time once Merom comes out?
Who says Intel will keep selling Yonahs for long time once Merom comes out?
No comments:
Post a Comment