or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by jlandd

You and your boat anchors. You don't even know what a boat anchor IS! : ) Intel has some leverage here and is applying it, as would Apple. You do know that Apple very nearly went with AMD in 2011 for the Airs and decided against it? Who would you recommend for the chips if not Intel or AMD? Who currently supplying major computers is capable of producing 25% of a world run of any Apple line? A boat anchor? You have no idea.
Erm, the 1,600 is pixel dimensions, not dpi. A 1,600 pixel image is good for lots of things. But at 72 dpi printing is not one of them.
Actually no, that's not how it usually works. File as soon as the "infringement" exists and you often can't prove 80% of what you might be legit suing for, which includes many things beyond the actual concept. It's a standard and legit practice in "legit" infringement cases to allow the defendant to go beyond being able to yank the plug and throw it back in the closet. When you have a legit case against a giant who you know you can't win against, it's considered a...
And the ecosystem continues to be reliant on the hardware suitable for the heavy lifting to be doing the heavy lifting, else we would all be miserable trying to use IOS devices to run our businesses on. Spoken by someone with either little insight or little needs. One division's runaway success is not what defines another's status of "boat achor", thankfully.
There's nothing nonsense about a good matte display vs an uber shiny reflective extra glossy one if you need to do real image work. Te problem isn't that a decent glossy screen won't work, it's that Apple is obsessed with screens that are TOO glossy. Great for visuals that have lots of impact. Difficult to create those visuals on it.
Couldn't? Never? Always? It turns out? : ) There are as many instances of non-necessary end of support as there are necessary. It's hardly "It always turns out that there is a valid hardware-related reason for not supporting the old hardware". That's as much conjecture as what it's refuting.
They didn't even sell to high visibility sales executives. They were a flop, pure and simple. Apple misjudged what they could release and charge for. The improved performance in the revised models brought them into usefulness, and sales responded, and now that they spec out as they do they sell well. One of Apple's greatest attributes (and I say this as an Apple fan not basher) is their ability to make people have amnesia about when they screwed up so they can proceed...
No one is saying that. What they're saying is that IF the next MBP can't do what their current one can, especially with regard the graphics card (not for gaming but for Aperture, Photoshop, etc.) there's nothing in the plus column that will make it worth upgrading to, as it won't be an upgrade except in ways that are secondary to them. A twice as powerful CPU but with shared graphics or lesser graphics card because a better one than what I've already got won't fit? IF...
"Sir, Aperture users are saying it runs poorly on the new slim MBPs because of the lack of suitable graphics card." "They don't need those graphics cards anymore. We have new, smaller ones right on the logic board" "But sir we made Aperture so GPU intensive that it doesn't run well on a compromised graphics card." "Bah. Works fine for me. This new smaller graphics card is great. See? I just took a picture and used Aperture to upload it to facebook. Forget about...
That's just for static storage, not active files. There is no cloud storage suitable to deal with large, working files in progress except as backups. Files currently being worked on, such as folders of hundred meg TIFFs or audio work as it is being worked on. That's the answer for offices, but not production environments.
New Posts  All Forums: