davelanger
Mar 30, 11:51 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/app
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
Apple did not TM the term APP they TM APP STORE.
Its not like apple is saying they cannot call their applications apps.
They are saying they cannot call their app store the app store.
Like I said, MS should just call is the WinApp Store, problem solved.
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
Apple did not TM the term APP they TM APP STORE.
Its not like apple is saying they cannot call their applications apps.
They are saying they cannot call their app store the app store.
Like I said, MS should just call is the WinApp Store, problem solved.
iSpartan
Apr 22, 11:22 AM
As my first post to macrumors, I just purchased a 13" refurb 30 min ago. Oh well, still good technology. I can finally sell my 2007 macbook.
kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 12:32 PM
What? You said the word Merom but didn't include a link to the guide? :p
Well anyways, if Apple could get Conroes into iMacs it would be great. A challenge I know (and I still personally think it is more likely to be a Merom iMac) but it would help to be that little bit more competitive. The rest is pretty much predictable, Merom for MBPs and eventually MacBooks and Mac Minis. Woodcrest for Mac Pro and MacServe (Macs in everything right ;) ). iMac's future is a big ?.
If you notice. Nowhere on the Apple store does it say "Yonah". It says Core Duo.
So all Apple has to do is say Core 2 Duo. There will be no "Merom" or "Conroe" differentation.
Besides I would rather have a Merom. It requires less power, which makes it run cooler, which makes it more effecient. Heat kills performance.
It is very likely that in the same box (iMac), that the the Merom will beat out the Conroe. Why? Because of heat.
Well anyways, if Apple could get Conroes into iMacs it would be great. A challenge I know (and I still personally think it is more likely to be a Merom iMac) but it would help to be that little bit more competitive. The rest is pretty much predictable, Merom for MBPs and eventually MacBooks and Mac Minis. Woodcrest for Mac Pro and MacServe (Macs in everything right ;) ). iMac's future is a big ?.
If you notice. Nowhere on the Apple store does it say "Yonah". It says Core Duo.
So all Apple has to do is say Core 2 Duo. There will be no "Merom" or "Conroe" differentation.
Besides I would rather have a Merom. It requires less power, which makes it run cooler, which makes it more effecient. Heat kills performance.
It is very likely that in the same box (iMac), that the the Merom will beat out the Conroe. Why? Because of heat.
bradc
Sep 10, 11:34 AM
Not naming names, but I find it funny how everyone suddenly becomes an engineer.:rolleyes:
k2director
Apr 4, 01:01 PM
Humans are pre-programmed to take such an action hard. Some don't, usually as a result of contemplation and training before such an incident. It is, however, natural to react that way. Best for all to recognize different people may take such a grave matter very differently, and that's ok.
Personally, if humans were pre-programmed to take killing another human so hard, I think we'd see a lot less senseless murder in the world.
Personally, if humans were pre-programmed to take killing another human so hard, I think we'd see a lot less senseless murder in the world.
brepublican
Jul 14, 11:23 AM
Quote:
Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors have a plethora of new features including Intel Wide Dynamic Execution, Intel Smart Memory Access, Intel Advanced Smart Cache and Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost.
Wow. Are all these features actually on an Intel chip? It's not obvious or anything :rolleyes:
Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors have a plethora of new features including Intel Wide Dynamic Execution, Intel Smart Memory Access, Intel Advanced Smart Cache and Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost.
Wow. Are all these features actually on an Intel chip? It's not obvious or anything :rolleyes:
Squonk
Sep 26, 08:49 AM
I'm currently on Cingular and I'm not in love with my SE T637 all that much. I wonder what the price on this shiny new iPhone is going to be... If the syncing does not create duplicates in my Address book from the phone, I'll be very very happy.:)
iMeowbot
Aug 29, 03:28 AM
I have never seen a PC manufacturer put out an ad that attacks Macs.
It happens. (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-26-2002/0001789141&EDATE=)
Gateway, Inc. (NYSE: GTW) today launches its sleek new Gateway Profile(R) 4 all-in-one PC with an aggressive advertising campaign encouraging people to compare it head-to-head with the Apple iMac computer on design, performance and value. TV, print and Web ads employ hard facts to demonstrate the superiority of the Gateway Profile 4 over the iMac.
It happens. (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-26-2002/0001789141&EDATE=)
Gateway, Inc. (NYSE: GTW) today launches its sleek new Gateway Profile(R) 4 all-in-one PC with an aggressive advertising campaign encouraging people to compare it head-to-head with the Apple iMac computer on design, performance and value. TV, print and Web ads employ hard facts to demonstrate the superiority of the Gateway Profile 4 over the iMac.
bjdku
Sep 13, 09:08 PM
This is stated so matter of fact. There is no ? in the title. How certain is arn? He always uses ?
I am quoting myself! arn went ahead and added to question mark to the title.
QCassidy352, you can deposit your savings in my escrow account and we will see if this thing happens.
I am quoting myself! arn went ahead and added to question mark to the title.
QCassidy352, you can deposit your savings in my escrow account and we will see if this thing happens.
Multimedia
Sep 9, 01:43 PM
I know this sounds silly but how do you monitor processor usage from a process via Activity Monitor? I have the Developer Tools installed too. I'm not a developer but well...my work requires me to have them installed anyways.Yes that's right. I always have Activity Monitor on so I can see exactly what's going on with my four cores. I have the sort on the percentage column on the left followed by the application name and then I stick it in the lower right corner of my two screens. By keeping it open I can make sure nothing has crashed.
Both Toast and Handbrake occasionally crash during an encode or even while Toast is writing the image after an encode. Occasionally it's due to a bad original file MPEG2 glitch that will keep causing Toast to crash repeatedly. But ususally I can relaunch and re-run the process and it works fine the second time.
Both Toast and Handbrake occasionally crash during an encode or even while Toast is writing the image after an encode. Occasionally it's due to a bad original file MPEG2 glitch that will keep causing Toast to crash repeatedly. But ususally I can relaunch and re-run the process and it works fine the second time.
KPOM
Apr 22, 11:50 AM
Is this a true statement from the OP: "But with new Sandy Bridge processors from Intel sporting improved graphics performance"
Improved when compared to the old Intel Integrated Graphics.
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
The resolution stayed the same on the 13" Pro. The 13" Air has a higher resolution, but perhaps that's to preserve a selling point. I don't think the Sandy Bridge IGP would have any difficulty driving the 1440x900 display.
Improved when compared to the old Intel Integrated Graphics.
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
The resolution stayed the same on the 13" Pro. The 13" Air has a higher resolution, but perhaps that's to preserve a selling point. I don't think the Sandy Bridge IGP would have any difficulty driving the 1440x900 display.
iJawn108
Oct 12, 08:23 PM
Meh I want the black nano to match my macbook, not a red one. :\
drlunanerd
Sep 2, 04:55 PM
I think it's pointing to Apple not bothering with the Paris Expo anymore. Their disinterest started last year, and unfortunately I was there at the time, altough Mr Jobs did show up for a press conference and checked out the Sony stand, ha.
I had a better time at the London Mac Expo. Apple should make product announcements here from now on :D
I had a better time at the London Mac Expo. Apple should make product announcements here from now on :D
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
ictiosapiens
Apr 25, 09:17 PM
For 99% of the market, the integrated graphics are fine. The majority of consumers don't read tech sites and are happy with the performance. The typical pc buyer doesn't know what a benchmark is. In almost every Apple vs Winodws pc argument on this and every other Mac site, the Mac fans without fail say specs don't matter. If you're a gamer, you'll notice the performance hit. To the million plus people who will buy the next model it won't make any difference.
And a large portion of that 99% of the market will find integrated graphics fine, until they venture to the Apple App Store, and find that their spanking new MBA have a video card not supported by 99% of the games on sale... In fact, integrated graphics are not only not supported, but are specifically singled out in most game's system requirements.
And a large portion of that 99% of the market will find integrated graphics fine, until they venture to the Apple App Store, and find that their spanking new MBA have a video card not supported by 99% of the games on sale... In fact, integrated graphics are not only not supported, but are specifically singled out in most game's system requirements.
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:27 AM
The paragraph I quoted kind of explains it.
I agree though, I'd like to see more proof if it is true.
But without the data a paragraph means nothing. Show me a map with that data on it from when location services was off.
I agree though, I'd like to see more proof if it is true.
But without the data a paragraph means nothing. Show me a map with that data on it from when location services was off.
gugy
Aug 28, 11:26 PM
Don't get me wrong, I would welcome a new enclosure but I think that allowing the prospect of one to be the determining factor in the purchase of a machine is ridiculous. As much as I would LOVE to have a gunmetal colored mbp, if it came out tomorrow I wouldn't be upset that I have a silver one because I truly do love my machine. Apple will always continue to innovate and release new products, and IMO now that they're using intel chips the rate of obsolescence will increase (in terms of harware and performance more than appearance).
To get a new design and enclosure is always nice. Apple has been doing amazing designs in the past years. For sure new enclosures will look nice.
The thing is, at this time after the whole Intel transition, all the current enclosures stayed the same (except few changes on Macbook). So, I would not expect anything different anytime soon. I think the current look is great in all Apple hardware line up. The only place I thought it could have a change was on the MacPro, because the G5 needed such a large enclosure. Apple responded keeping the same design and just adding more features that before was not possible under the G5 chip. That makes me believe they will keep the same enclosures for awhile.
I agreed that subtle improvements are welcome and they probably will happen. But if people are making their buying decision based on a new look coming soon, I think they will wait quite a bit and get disappoint.
To get a new design and enclosure is always nice. Apple has been doing amazing designs in the past years. For sure new enclosures will look nice.
The thing is, at this time after the whole Intel transition, all the current enclosures stayed the same (except few changes on Macbook). So, I would not expect anything different anytime soon. I think the current look is great in all Apple hardware line up. The only place I thought it could have a change was on the MacPro, because the G5 needed such a large enclosure. Apple responded keeping the same design and just adding more features that before was not possible under the G5 chip. That makes me believe they will keep the same enclosures for awhile.
I agreed that subtle improvements are welcome and they probably will happen. But if people are making their buying decision based on a new look coming soon, I think they will wait quite a bit and get disappoint.
mainstreetmark
Apr 20, 10:00 AM
i'm tired of companies taking our privacy so lightly. makes a consumer feel like a dumb piece of meat. i hope someone files a lawsuit over this. any sneaky tactics like this should be outright banned by the government. maybe once we get some politicians of a younger generation in there who are more aware of these issues they will actually do something to protect the consumer from greedy and arrogant corporations. i hope but i'm not sure i will ever see this dream realized the way government currently lets companies run rampant.
It *is* private now. This information isn't broadcast anywhere but your own personal computer in the form of an encrypted backup file. The information won't go anywhere but with you and your property.
However, if your iphone gets stolen, the GPS log is likely the least private thing you need to worry about. The thief will have access to your entire contact list, browsing history, etc..
It *is* private now. This information isn't broadcast anywhere but your own personal computer in the form of an encrypted backup file. The information won't go anywhere but with you and your property.
However, if your iphone gets stolen, the GPS log is likely the least private thing you need to worry about. The thief will have access to your entire contact list, browsing history, etc..
pubwvj
Apr 20, 10:38 AM
So how would I go about encrypting this backup file on my Mac?
Don't rely on encryption to protect you in any way. The police can crack it, as can hackers, and they can simply demand with a court order that you give them the password. Then you're forced to essentially testify against yourself. No, pleading the 5th won't help.
Don't rely on encryption to protect you in any way. The police can crack it, as can hackers, and they can simply demand with a court order that you give them the password. Then you're forced to essentially testify against yourself. No, pleading the 5th won't help.
logandzwon
Mar 30, 01:16 PM
RoomStore too.
Here is the TM for for RoomStore;
Word Mark ROOMSTORE
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: retail furniture store services. FIRST USE: 19920000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19950000
Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM
Serial Number 75199278
Filing Date November 18, 1996
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition September 30, 1997
Registration Number 2123451
Registration Date December 23, 1997
Owner (REGISTRANT) Richard B. Levitz Sons, Inc. CORPORATION TEXAS 502 Fountain Parkway Grand Prairie TEXAS 75050
(LAST LISTED OWNER) ROOMSTORE, INC. CORPORATION VIRGINIA 12501 PATTERSON AVE. RICHMOND VIRGINIA 23233
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record R. JOEL ANKNEY
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20071101.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20071101
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
However, I'm not sure this really is applicable to this conversion as the roomstore does not sell rooms, it sells furniture.
Here is the TM for for RoomStore;
Word Mark ROOMSTORE
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: retail furniture store services. FIRST USE: 19920000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19950000
Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM
Serial Number 75199278
Filing Date November 18, 1996
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition September 30, 1997
Registration Number 2123451
Registration Date December 23, 1997
Owner (REGISTRANT) Richard B. Levitz Sons, Inc. CORPORATION TEXAS 502 Fountain Parkway Grand Prairie TEXAS 75050
(LAST LISTED OWNER) ROOMSTORE, INC. CORPORATION VIRGINIA 12501 PATTERSON AVE. RICHMOND VIRGINIA 23233
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record R. JOEL ANKNEY
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20071101.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20071101
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
However, I'm not sure this really is applicable to this conversion as the roomstore does not sell rooms, it sells furniture.
corywoolf
Sep 5, 03:32 PM
Showtime is owned by Viacom,who also owns the movie channel and a cable company.
Who also owns the trademark "Mighty Mouse", which Apple licensed. I think he might be onto something. More then likely, the product is called "Showtime".
Who also owns the trademark "Mighty Mouse", which Apple licensed. I think he might be onto something. More then likely, the product is called "Showtime".
Consultant
Apr 11, 02:10 AM
What I don't get is why can't Apple enable any iOS device (iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad) as an Airplay target device? Obviously iOS supports it as Apple TV can be a target for Airplay from iTunes.
There are apps for AirPlay.
Perhaps you have not heard of this thing call the App Store. :rolleyes:
There are apps for AirPlay.
Perhaps you have not heard of this thing call the App Store. :rolleyes:
corywoolf
Sep 14, 05:55 PM
My money is on:
- MacBook Pro w/ Core 2 Duo (shipping in Oct.)
- Aperture 2.0
- iSight with Built in IR Receiver + Apple remote
- MacBook Pro w/ Core 2 Duo (shipping in Oct.)
- Aperture 2.0
- iSight with Built in IR Receiver + Apple remote
Multimedia
Sep 10, 05:29 PM
If you need 16 cores, shouldn't you get a rack with four Xserves (once the new Xserves with Intel-processors become available)?
Sure, getting the same in one (quiet) box for the price of one box would be preferable but this is not available yet.
Or, do you mean you want 16 cores but right now you are not willing to spent what it takes to get it.
(Sorry for the tone, I would like to have 16 cores for my work as well.)What tone? Yeah I don't want to spend that much. I'm thinking $4k max for an 8 Core-In-One Mac Pro. I'm sure I'll be pretty happy with 8 until I find out I still have to wait a lot for video compressions to happen. Then I'll be right back here complaining about how 8 cores isn't enough either.I'm with you there. Although I don't do video compression but Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign work, I'm sure Adobe will manage to deliver a version of CS3 that still feels sluggish under 8 cores.Glad I won't be alone. :) We are an unusual small group finding a reason to need a lot of cores. I think those who don't don't understand us.I still wonder if all this video editing is personal or for profit. :rolleyes:Personal. I'm just trying to archive Television recordings - simple. But currently it takes longer than the shows run IE about 3x time spent watching, then crushing each show. That's a very time consuming thing to get hung up on. And I'm sure it makes no sense to 90% of those here.
Sure, getting the same in one (quiet) box for the price of one box would be preferable but this is not available yet.
Or, do you mean you want 16 cores but right now you are not willing to spent what it takes to get it.
(Sorry for the tone, I would like to have 16 cores for my work as well.)What tone? Yeah I don't want to spend that much. I'm thinking $4k max for an 8 Core-In-One Mac Pro. I'm sure I'll be pretty happy with 8 until I find out I still have to wait a lot for video compressions to happen. Then I'll be right back here complaining about how 8 cores isn't enough either.I'm with you there. Although I don't do video compression but Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign work, I'm sure Adobe will manage to deliver a version of CS3 that still feels sluggish under 8 cores.Glad I won't be alone. :) We are an unusual small group finding a reason to need a lot of cores. I think those who don't don't understand us.I still wonder if all this video editing is personal or for profit. :rolleyes:Personal. I'm just trying to archive Television recordings - simple. But currently it takes longer than the shows run IE about 3x time spent watching, then crushing each show. That's a very time consuming thing to get hung up on. And I'm sure it makes no sense to 90% of those here.
No comments:
Post a Comment