EricNau
Oct 26, 07:09 PM
I've been very disappointed with these MacBooks. All of the problems I've had and all of the problems I've heard about have proven, in my opinion, that Apple's quality is no longer what it used to be.
Apple charges a nice premium for their machines, one which I am willing to pay, assuming I get a better quality computer, but I don't believe this is the case.
Apple's reluctance to replace problematic MacBooks just adds to the issue.
I would suggest that Apple implement some quality control for their MacBook line, but we all know what happens when they do. ;) :rolleyes:
Apple charges a nice premium for their machines, one which I am willing to pay, assuming I get a better quality computer, but I don't believe this is the case.
Apple's reluctance to replace problematic MacBooks just adds to the issue.
I would suggest that Apple implement some quality control for their MacBook line, but we all know what happens when they do. ;) :rolleyes:
lex750
Mar 11, 06:58 PM
Yay... i5/i7 with blu-ray, and hdmi... I CAN"T WAIT!
Designer Dale
Oct 12, 01:52 PM
Love the cat on your printer.:)
Love the blanket for the cat on the printer. Satoneko is a true cat person.
Dale
Love the blanket for the cat on the printer. Satoneko is a true cat person.
Dale
ImAlwaysRight
Aug 7, 11:46 PM
I find it weird that you get a remote control and front row on a lower end machine but you can't even get it as a custom configuration option on the higher end machines. I understand that these are supposed to be the "professional" machines and iMacs are for "consumers," but in the real world that delineation doesn't mean much. Many people buying Mac Pros are getting them as their home computer, and it's pretty lame that you drop extra money on the high end and can't do some of the really cool things that can be done on a lower end model.
No remote? No Photo Booth? That's got to be a deal breaker for a lot of folks. ;)
As for the real world, many professionals have funds to purchase these machines as they will use the speed. It seems to me that most "consumers" are not able or willing to plop down the cash to buy a Mac Pro when an iMac or MacBook or even Mac Mini will more than suit their needs.
No remote? No Photo Booth? That's got to be a deal breaker for a lot of folks. ;)
As for the real world, many professionals have funds to purchase these machines as they will use the speed. It seems to me that most "consumers" are not able or willing to plop down the cash to buy a Mac Pro when an iMac or MacBook or even Mac Mini will more than suit their needs.
j-traxx
Mar 11, 04:10 PM
I just bought a Macbook Pro literally 5 minutes ago. I've been waiting for months and I finally gave up. After the order was completed, I thought I'd check macrumors just for laughs and the first thing I saw was, "new macbook pros tomorrow?" :(
lol! sucks... or maybe you have an awesome machine one the way anyway. i bought my macbook pro right before they did the 2.53 refurbs to make way for the sd cardslot mbp's. those could handle 8 gig of mem and mine is a 2.4 with 4gb max. all they sold those for just 1500 bucks and i bought mine for 1800. i was a month and 6 days out of the price guarantee threshhold. i wanted to die...... but then i realized my mac is a monster in it's own right and im enjoying the heck out of it and will continue to do so for the next 7 or 8 years. ..... still sucks tho.
lol! sucks... or maybe you have an awesome machine one the way anyway. i bought my macbook pro right before they did the 2.53 refurbs to make way for the sd cardslot mbp's. those could handle 8 gig of mem and mine is a 2.4 with 4gb max. all they sold those for just 1500 bucks and i bought mine for 1800. i was a month and 6 days out of the price guarantee threshhold. i wanted to die...... but then i realized my mac is a monster in it's own right and im enjoying the heck out of it and will continue to do so for the next 7 or 8 years. ..... still sucks tho.
Retrograffica
Jan 11, 02:45 PM
You know, I hate to say this, but it has a striking resemblance to the "Vista" font. Granted, "vista" is more narrow. Scary, huh?
This could be more of the same shrewd move they did with the Leopard menu bar, I know it's nasty but Apple are trying to get more PC users to switch and offering them something they are familiar with would help the transition
This could be more of the same shrewd move they did with the Leopard menu bar, I know it's nasty but Apple are trying to get more PC users to switch and offering them something they are familiar with would help the transition
leekohler
Apr 4, 12:29 PM
Do we atheists need our own "Good Book"?
No- how ridiculous. Atheism is not a religion.
No- how ridiculous. Atheism is not a religion.
chillywilly
Apr 18, 09:52 PM
Being a professional myself I remember having those fears a few years ago. In fact we lost a large client because one of the employees thought that her high school son could do the same level of work that we did. If that were true I would say shame on us, in reality the client came back to us a few months later when the kid couldn't actually produce the same level of edit quality and creativity that we do.
The price drop doesn't bother me one bit. I think if anything it does open up the door for a teenager to start learning on high end software, then by the time they've finished college and have a sense of who they are as an editor they'll be a welcome, proficient addition, to someones company. I think it serves everyone in the end.
Great post and the kind of logic that this new FCPX will bring to those wanting to get into the video production industry. I'm almost 4 years into my video editing "career" and still forward people to the pros for projects that are too much for me and ones that I know my skill level limits on. I'm excited about this new version, hoping it will expand my skills even more.
The price drop doesn't bother me one bit. I think if anything it does open up the door for a teenager to start learning on high end software, then by the time they've finished college and have a sense of who they are as an editor they'll be a welcome, proficient addition, to someones company. I think it serves everyone in the end.
Great post and the kind of logic that this new FCPX will bring to those wanting to get into the video production industry. I'm almost 4 years into my video editing "career" and still forward people to the pros for projects that are too much for me and ones that I know my skill level limits on. I'm excited about this new version, hoping it will expand my skills even more.
A Robot
Nov 30, 10:44 PM
This means I'll finally get album art from itunes.
anim8or
Sep 6, 09:15 AM
Does anyone think that as we have seen the Mac Mini's update was just a speed bump, that the MacBook will only see a speed bump too.
There has been a debate as to whether the MacBook will see 'merom' this year, i think that the evidence speaks for itself... ...not til next year.
Here is how i see it;
Mac Mini, MacBook White - Consumer models - Core Duo til late this year or early next
iMac, MacBook Black - Bridge between consumer and pro - Core 2 Duo (Possibly not in the BlackBook but perhaps as an option?)
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro - Pro Models - Core 2 Duo
Just my opinion... ...what does everyone else think?
There has been a debate as to whether the MacBook will see 'merom' this year, i think that the evidence speaks for itself... ...not til next year.
Here is how i see it;
Mac Mini, MacBook White - Consumer models - Core Duo til late this year or early next
iMac, MacBook Black - Bridge between consumer and pro - Core 2 Duo (Possibly not in the BlackBook but perhaps as an option?)
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro - Pro Models - Core 2 Duo
Just my opinion... ...what does everyone else think?
banjomamo
Jul 22, 10:08 PM
But wind energy is, so one ipod versus piles of books, we could finally stop all this senseless logging.
Save 5,000 trees with your iPod.
Save 5,000 trees with your iPod.
Wharrgarbl
Jan 11, 04:50 PM
Don't forget that AT&T is *massively* pissed at Apple and Steve Jobs right now. They intentionally torpedoed iPhone sales right before the holidays to punish Jobs for doing *something* really wrong.
What could that be? I bet it has to do with another carrier. Apple doesn't (yet) own 700mhz spectrum, and they *do* make a line of delicious mobile products that are crying out for always-on mobile bandwidth. Verizon is still hurting from snubbing the iPhone; who wants to bet that they sold Jobso a bunch of bulk spectrum for Macbooks or iTablets?
What could that be? I bet it has to do with another carrier. Apple doesn't (yet) own 700mhz spectrum, and they *do* make a line of delicious mobile products that are crying out for always-on mobile bandwidth. Verizon is still hurting from snubbing the iPhone; who wants to bet that they sold Jobso a bunch of bulk spectrum for Macbooks or iTablets?
fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
jmpage2
Nov 12, 11:02 AM
The trade off is performance.
Certainly a lot of applications for the iphone could be moved to a web front end, however the applications would be far less sophisticated and would run much slower.
The choice of letting everyone run wild and do whatever the hell they want with the phones is a bad choice. Just look at all the wankers down in Australia who were too lazy to change ssh passwords on their phones and got pwnd by a worm.
If you want to do whatever the heck you want then run a jailbroken phone and take all of the risks.
I do think that Apple needs to work harder on App approval, and I believe the best thing for them to do is have a gold certification level for developers who are trusted. Those developers would be allowed to make as many changes to their applications as they wanted without any interference or approval from apple.
Certainly a lot of applications for the iphone could be moved to a web front end, however the applications would be far less sophisticated and would run much slower.
The choice of letting everyone run wild and do whatever the hell they want with the phones is a bad choice. Just look at all the wankers down in Australia who were too lazy to change ssh passwords on their phones and got pwnd by a worm.
If you want to do whatever the heck you want then run a jailbroken phone and take all of the risks.
I do think that Apple needs to work harder on App approval, and I believe the best thing for them to do is have a gold certification level for developers who are trusted. Those developers would be allowed to make as many changes to their applications as they wanted without any interference or approval from apple.
roland.g
Mar 29, 10:11 AM
I think I'll enjoy my iPhone 4 a while longer and my battery life. LTE is not prevalent enough yet, nor are the chipsets able to run low power enough. Mid 2012 is the best timeframe for LTE. Any earlier and you are on the bleeding edge of no infrastructure. The networks and the technology simply aren't ready.
Oh, and the biggest myth about LTE: People actually believe there will be a significant bandwidth improvement. Sorry, but the jump from EDGE to 3G was much more significant than 3G to LTE, especially with 3G running at 7.2.
Oh, and the biggest myth about LTE: People actually believe there will be a significant bandwidth improvement. Sorry, but the jump from EDGE to 3G was much more significant than 3G to LTE, especially with 3G running at 7.2.
ericinboston
May 5, 08:43 AM
1)what is the point on the iPad? I can read my email in 3D? Do the smiley faces in my emails hover in mid air?
2)3D technology has been tested since the 80s...and they all require silly (and expensive) glasses to wear...3D technology needs to go much further and dump the glasses. Besides, 3D basically stinks...yes, some day it will get really good and our Sunday football games will be killer...but I'm still thinking we're 20 years away from a true 3D "tv" experience in our living rooms for under $3000.
2)3D technology has been tested since the 80s...and they all require silly (and expensive) glasses to wear...3D technology needs to go much further and dump the glasses. Besides, 3D basically stinks...yes, some day it will get really good and our Sunday football games will be killer...but I'm still thinking we're 20 years away from a true 3D "tv" experience in our living rooms for under $3000.
otter
Mar 3, 11:16 PM
San Francisco Chinatown.
http://blog.darinrogers.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/MG_9268.jpg (http://blog.darinrogers.net/2010/11/streets-of-san-francisco/)
http://blog.darinrogers.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/MG_9268.jpg (http://blog.darinrogers.net/2010/11/streets-of-san-francisco/)
sierra oscar
Nov 7, 02:24 AM
Apple is primarily an American company and they know that the news cycle will be heavy with Election Results. They can wait until next week and get more bang for the same buck. Europe (Australia, Asia, etc. ) will be just as happy with a Nov. 14 release as Nov. 7.
My response was more tongue in cheek - knowing full well the US-Centricity of Apple.
My response was more tongue in cheek - knowing full well the US-Centricity of Apple.
rigoni
Nov 27, 11:06 AM
What about a yellow Ipod?
mdntcallr
Nov 27, 10:57 AM
If an ipod by U2 sold a good amount of units, imagine how many units a beatles unit would?
hell, i hope they make it look nice.
hell, i hope they make it look nice.
Joshwawilson
May 5, 09:49 PM
I swore to myself When I bought iPad 2 that I'd wait for iPad 4 to upgrade again...don't know if I'll be able to pass up a 3d iPad tho!
Bonte
Jul 24, 07:20 AM
It would be very interesting to read Lord of the Rings and have the soundtrack playing - synchronised to where you're up to in the book. Or the book with excerpts from the movie.
Or pictures synchronized with an audiobook, or an ebook together with the preferred music from the author. This ads a whole new dimension to everything, Music, text, pictures and movies can all be combined into 1 work of art.
Or pictures synchronized with an audiobook, or an ebook together with the preferred music from the author. This ads a whole new dimension to everything, Music, text, pictures and movies can all be combined into 1 work of art.
HecubusPro
Sep 5, 01:14 PM
I say iTunes Movie Store and new iPod nanos. Possibly a rev of the iMacs, since they were the first ones to go Intel.
And hopefully updated MBP's with C2D.
And hopefully updated MBP's with C2D.
SevenInchScrew
Sep 13, 10:54 AM
Nope, none of those reviews count until ZP reviews it, because he is the only person not on drugs.
Well, in general, reviews should never be the one and only thing someone bases their purchases on. And yes, that includes Yahtzee.
Well, in general, reviews should never be the one and only thing someone bases their purchases on. And yes, that includes Yahtzee.
No comments:
Post a Comment