eMac4ever
Oct 18, 04:31 PM
Mac sales really have been increasing the past couple of quaters. Hopefully, those new Mac buyers continue buying Apple products. Also, It's a good thing I own some Apple stock. :D
TOYSTER17
Apr 23, 08:45 PM
No such place as "cali". Please try again.
I think "cali" is acceptable.
I think "cali" is acceptable.
Rad99004
Apr 22, 07:56 PM
Nobody mentioned WHERE IS THE MUTE SWITCH?
appleguy123
Apr 17, 06:35 PM
Maybe you could reach out to Nies And ucfgrad93 to see if they would like to play in this game. hopefully that simple game I ran got us some lifelong new players. :D
more...
mrelwood
Apr 14, 10:07 AM
I think you are all wrong. On the BMW model names "ix" stands for a fuel injection engine and four-wheel drive. I believe there is an OS M coming for certain BMW models.
DewGuy1999
Sep 14, 08:39 AM
:D
http://siennaplantationrealtor.com/images/SOLD%20sign.jpg
Congrats. When's the housewarming?
http://siennaplantationrealtor.com/images/SOLD%20sign.jpg
Congrats. When's the housewarming?
more...
wizard
Apr 15, 11:01 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Learn from Google? What has Google developed that's anything close to an OS? And no, Chrome OS doesn't count...it's a giant web browser, with Cloud Apps...
TROLL
By that same vein, what has Apple ever developed that's anything close to a OS ? And no, Mac OS X, a bunch of components bought/taken from the open source community doesn't count... it's just a Unix distribution with a GUI layer on top. :rolleyes:
It's easy to discount anything going with that mentality. The fact is, Chrome OS is as much an undertaking as OS X was. It's more than just a "Web browser" since web browsers cannot be booted and don't provide graphical sub-systems, input management and process scheduling obviously.
(yes, I do realise Mac OS Classic existed).
And to answer your question directly : Android. ;)
Android what a laugh! The OS is Linux which they effectively forked. The SDK is built on a Java work alike, a work a like that has a questionable amount of others people's code in it. On top of that they purchased the company that started out developing the concept of Android.
It is reasonable to question if Android is even an ethical product. I don't think it is thus I steer people away from it. I don't want to discount the intelligence of the people working at Google, but I don't think the management there has any respect for the property of others. Android is just one factor here, google has problems with copyright and the concept of personal property.
Learn from Google? What has Google developed that's anything close to an OS? And no, Chrome OS doesn't count...it's a giant web browser, with Cloud Apps...
TROLL
By that same vein, what has Apple ever developed that's anything close to a OS ? And no, Mac OS X, a bunch of components bought/taken from the open source community doesn't count... it's just a Unix distribution with a GUI layer on top. :rolleyes:
It's easy to discount anything going with that mentality. The fact is, Chrome OS is as much an undertaking as OS X was. It's more than just a "Web browser" since web browsers cannot be booted and don't provide graphical sub-systems, input management and process scheduling obviously.
(yes, I do realise Mac OS Classic existed).
And to answer your question directly : Android. ;)
Android what a laugh! The OS is Linux which they effectively forked. The SDK is built on a Java work alike, a work a like that has a questionable amount of others people's code in it. On top of that they purchased the company that started out developing the concept of Android.
It is reasonable to question if Android is even an ethical product. I don't think it is thus I steer people away from it. I don't want to discount the intelligence of the people working at Google, but I don't think the management there has any respect for the property of others. Android is just one factor here, google has problems with copyright and the concept of personal property.
sjo
Jul 12, 03:34 AM
If this ipod killer was coming out of MS central (software dev, etc) i wouldn't be concerned. However the team that is working on it (xbox) actually are decently creative.
Still they need to start actually making money one of these days. Subsidizing new versions for ppls itms libraries it would cost them roughly $1B... They can't sell their player for a premium (if they could they wouldn't need to subsidize song, right?) so the margins are likely to be thin, as are the margins on online music store business (except for record labels). This seems yet another venture without profits in the foreseeable future for xbox division.
Besides, I fail to see what's creative about xbox or xbox360 :confused:
Still they need to start actually making money one of these days. Subsidizing new versions for ppls itms libraries it would cost them roughly $1B... They can't sell their player for a premium (if they could they wouldn't need to subsidize song, right?) so the margins are likely to be thin, as are the margins on online music store business (except for record labels). This seems yet another venture without profits in the foreseeable future for xbox division.
Besides, I fail to see what's creative about xbox or xbox360 :confused:
more...
Cheerwino
Apr 13, 02:42 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Anytime an "analyst" opens their mouth, it should be page 2 material at best.
Every time an analyst speaks, a fairy dies. :(
Anytime an "analyst" opens their mouth, it should be page 2 material at best.
Every time an analyst speaks, a fairy dies. :(
chrmjenkins
Apr 26, 05:53 PM
AT&T's HSPA+ can pull down 21 MB theoretically. 4x faster than HSPA 7.2.
The theoretical never actually happen though. That's why I'd take a superior network standard with a lower frequency, and thus better building penetration, any day.
The theoretical never actually happen though. That's why I'd take a superior network standard with a lower frequency, and thus better building penetration, any day.
more...
Mherm88
May 3, 08:21 AM
Hopefully the ifixit teardown will reveal if there is a 2nd bay accessible for manually adding an SSD if I choose the 1TB option, I want to just put a 128GB or even a 64GB SSD just for applications and the system and store music/movies/photos/docs on the 1TB. I have my windows desktop setup this way with a 64GB and it is wonderful, I don't want to pay $600 to get a 256GB SSD plus 1TB.
trainguy77
Nov 23, 03:38 PM
Hi everyone, just joined the team.
I have an iMac core duo going at it. She isn't much with her 1.83Ghz but it'll be at it 24h a day. It's about to complete it's first WU after 1day 19hours. It sounds a bit long to me compared to the times a say reading the thread, is this normal?
Keep in mind some of the people in this thread are using Mac Pros.
Which client are you using? Are both cores being used?
I have an iMac core duo going at it. She isn't much with her 1.83Ghz but it'll be at it 24h a day. It's about to complete it's first WU after 1day 19hours. It sounds a bit long to me compared to the times a say reading the thread, is this normal?
Keep in mind some of the people in this thread are using Mac Pros.
Which client are you using? Are both cores being used?
more...
MattG
Jul 24, 10:10 PM
I want an iPod that can read my mind...I'll bet Apple could do it
peapody
Sep 12, 07:28 PM
That thing has more sugar than a mocha FYI...
unsweetened! ;)
unsweetened! ;)
more...
southernpaws
Apr 23, 04:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Im a shareholder. Similar to many others here that you mindlessly dismiss
I have nothing against Apple shareholders (both shorts and longs :D). It's just this is not a forum for them. This is their forum: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/AAPL
Seriously? An apple rumors forum is no place fo a shareholder? That's absurd.
"As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries."
If you want to play numbers, the iPhone on Verizon (same carrier as thunderbolt) sold 2.2 million in two months, compared to a quarter million in one month for tbolt. Saying that equals 3million annually 1) makes it compete better with the iPhone over two months on a single carrier and 2) assumes that the numbers remain constant. Being that people are figuring out that the battery life is dreadful (and you forget that the majority of the market doesn't want to swap batteries like it's 1999) and that android phones have a short cycle of being the hottest new thing, I don't think there's a basis to assume consistent sales in line with their opening month. Numbers can say anything when there's no common sense behind it.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Im a shareholder. Similar to many others here that you mindlessly dismiss
I have nothing against Apple shareholders (both shorts and longs :D). It's just this is not a forum for them. This is their forum: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/AAPL
Seriously? An apple rumors forum is no place fo a shareholder? That's absurd.
"As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries."
If you want to play numbers, the iPhone on Verizon (same carrier as thunderbolt) sold 2.2 million in two months, compared to a quarter million in one month for tbolt. Saying that equals 3million annually 1) makes it compete better with the iPhone over two months on a single carrier and 2) assumes that the numbers remain constant. Being that people are figuring out that the battery life is dreadful (and you forget that the majority of the market doesn't want to swap batteries like it's 1999) and that android phones have a short cycle of being the hottest new thing, I don't think there's a basis to assume consistent sales in line with their opening month. Numbers can say anything when there's no common sense behind it.
Razeus
Apr 11, 10:23 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5269/5612194178_d500f7c67e_z.jpg
more...
NickZac
Dec 31, 08:48 AM
You bring up a VERY good point. The US grows over 300 million metric tons of corn each year and we pack it into every softdrink. Even 'fruit' juices have more HFCS than actual fruit. Corn is poorly digested to begin with, and corn syrup definitely causes issues. The US also allows the usage of a few major chemicals in foods which the rest of the industrialized world, and a lot of the non industrialized world, stopped using years ago. Links of these chemicals to obesity is still being studied.
iDrinkKoolAid
Jul 29, 12:15 AM
I'm guessing others have already echoed my thoughts already, but competition is good a good thing.
The iPod is great (I use one every day at the gym), but nothing lasts forever.
I'm worried that Microsoft is in it for the long haul and will hold on until the iPod is crushed.
Then we'll be all left with sub-standard MP3 players that only work with Windows. :(
The iPod is great (I use one every day at the gym), but nothing lasts forever.
I'm worried that Microsoft is in it for the long haul and will hold on until the iPod is crushed.
Then we'll be all left with sub-standard MP3 players that only work with Windows. :(
phototech11
Mar 16, 11:31 AM
ROFL! No one in their right mind is going to swap an AT&T for a Verizon model when the GSM models are in such short supply.
Well at lease I will have one to trade at the Apple store once they get some more in...we shall see who has the last laugh.
I will be at the Brea Mall Satruday AM if anyone wants to trade or PM me.
Well at lease I will have one to trade at the Apple store once they get some more in...we shall see who has the last laugh.
I will be at the Brea Mall Satruday AM if anyone wants to trade or PM me.
iStefmac
Jan 30, 09:08 AM
One word. Macworld.
I sold half of my shares in the company the day before Macworld at an astounding price. I personally feel for whoever the buyer was, as they paid well over what my shares were worth that day (wrongly anticipating a spike after Macworld). I, however, have had a close eye on the rumors and Apple's business model as of late. I anticipated several elements that came to frutition, and now still having half of my Apple stock, I about broke even. Until Apple soars high again :). First really insightful stock market decision I've ever made.
Buy now :-) Thats my $0.02
I sold half of my shares in the company the day before Macworld at an astounding price. I personally feel for whoever the buyer was, as they paid well over what my shares were worth that day (wrongly anticipating a spike after Macworld). I, however, have had a close eye on the rumors and Apple's business model as of late. I anticipated several elements that came to frutition, and now still having half of my Apple stock, I about broke even. Until Apple soars high again :). First really insightful stock market decision I've ever made.
Buy now :-) Thats my $0.02
pdxa4
May 5, 12:14 PM
I'll be happy to wait until Aug/Sep for the iPhone 5, my 3GS is struggling these days (I've been eligible for a upgrade for three months now) but I'm willing to wait longer.
I'm actually glad that Apple are holding back on the release to give them more development/testing time, I'm sure that Apple will ensure that no "antennagate" incident will happen again.
I'm actually glad that Apple are holding back on the release to give them more development/testing time, I'm sure that Apple will ensure that no "antennagate" incident will happen again.
HyperZboy
Apr 28, 06:04 PM
Where is Oliver Stone when you need him?
I'm sure he'll solve this conspiracy.
I'm absolutely certain the white iPhone was involved in the JFK thing. :D
And nobody has yet to actually measure the phones!
I'm sure Oliver Stone will find the Super 8 video to solve this crime! LOL
I'm sure he'll solve this conspiracy.
I'm absolutely certain the white iPhone was involved in the JFK thing. :D
And nobody has yet to actually measure the phones!
I'm sure Oliver Stone will find the Super 8 video to solve this crime! LOL
KnightWRX
Apr 15, 05:15 PM
OSX was not built on UNIX, it is Mach/XNU with a BSD subsystem, it is UNIX-like, much like linux.
OS X is Unix, it is not Unix-like much like Linux.
It is the real deal, Unix '03 certified and all. The BSD userland qualifies as genuine Unix and the kernel provides the entire required POSIX syscall interfaces to pass the certification tests :
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3581.htm
So yes, in a sense, OS X is built on top of Unix, NeXT's implementation of it which happens to use a Berkeley userland and a Carnegie made Mach kernel.
OS X is Unix, it is not Unix-like much like Linux.
It is the real deal, Unix '03 certified and all. The BSD userland qualifies as genuine Unix and the kernel provides the entire required POSIX syscall interfaces to pass the certification tests :
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3581.htm
So yes, in a sense, OS X is built on top of Unix, NeXT's implementation of it which happens to use a Berkeley userland and a Carnegie made Mach kernel.
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive