With a 4% worldwide market share for computers, no desktop computer with a desktop CPU, no licensing of Mac OS X, I wouldn't say that things are so great for Apple under Steve Jobs' leadership.
Steve Jobs demanded backdated stock option bonuses worth more than a billion dollars, but can Steve Jobs really increase the market share of Mac computers by allowing more models or licensing Mac OS X to computer desktop manufacturers like HP and Dell?
If Apple cannot or won't build a desktop computer with a desktop CPU, it should license Mac OS X to companies who can build computers that people want to buy. The iMac is an overpriced, all-in-one computer with a mobile, slower, cooler CPU and graphic card because the iMac is too thin.
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.
Um . . . Apple is doing exactly what customers want. That kind of explains record quarters, record Mac sales (in a recession), outpacing the rest of the industry several years running, domination of the Premium segment of the market ($1000+ noteboks), Macs #1 in customer satisfaction several years running, unprecedented increases in marketshare, the list just goes on and on.
Why the hell would Apple license out OS X?
Have you been in a coma since 2006?
Not sure if Apple is giving the trolls what they want, though. Sorry about that.
I would have quoted your long winded reply, but it would seem rude given it's length. Nothing in your post will change the fact that all the reasons for your desire for Matte are strictly due to your personal dislike of glossy. Your opinion has no effect on mine. I have a light directly behind my iMac 24" glossy screen and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Given the choice, I would buy glossy again. The simple fact is, that it was obviously more profitable for Apple to ditch the matte option at the time. Sucks to be you.
The HP info is interesting but not relevant to a Mac buyer. Mac owners are an entirely different type of user. Lenovo buyers are arguably more business oriented and more likely to use a laptop in an office environment with neon lighting overhead. Mac's on the other hand have much smaller penetration in the office except for design firms and the like which oddly enough, tend to prefer glossy screens due to the color, clarity, and sharpness offered by glossy screens.
If you don't like it, then don't buy a Mac. It's just that simple. If they happen to re-introduce matte in whatever model you feel you must have, again that's great. Just don't imply that people who prefer glossy are newbs and stupid for their choices (obviously a large number of folks if it's enough for Apple to change their offerings). I am certainly no newb to PC's. I've been working with them since I started on a TRS-80 and a trusty cassette tape for storage. I also don't think it was a stupid move on Apple's part, and apparently neither do Apple's stock prices.
Dying? Not even close. Maybe less popular. But desktops will never die.
Yes, I do think quad cores and big GPUS in an imac will change everything. I buy based on specs. So this would result in me buying an imac. It's the specs that get things done better and faster. Better gaming performance. No current imac is much faster than my desktop that I built 3 years ago for less money. It's the towers that offer the upgrade options. And they are cheaper to build.
When you start using laptop parts prices go up.
I don't see where a desktop needs to get thinner or lighter. Or portable. You aren't moving it around or taking it with you. That's what laptops are for. And if it were thinner you'd have a harder time getting desktop parts in it. Laptop parts are too limited and too expensive.
Besides, it sits under your desk. Who the hell cares what it looks like?
I'd rather have something I can upgrade easily. My desktop now has lasted me for 3 years with only minor upgrades(ram and video card) and I could keep it going years more. I do own a laptop. I bought a cheap $300 acer. I just needed some for use around the house. Mainly in the kitchen for recipes and emails and such. I did want to get a macbook but it's hard to justify the price when I just needed internet access.
Haven't used Intel GPU's in 10+ months. They are using an nVidia GPU. 52.6 gb/s compared to Radeon 3200HD's 38, Intel GMA 4500HD's 29 and GMA 950's 10.6... I think it works.
Maybe you haven't read up on this, but all Intel mainstream mobile GPUs (Arrandale) will have Intel graphics on the CPU package. You don't get a choice.
Quote:
Having multiple FW ports is OK, but every FW device (hell even the 2.5" Laptop SATA case I have has 2 FW 400 ports) has multiple FW ports because they can be daisy-chained and not loose any speed (to an extent, if you have more than 20 devices maybe you should consider a Mac Pro).
IIRC, camcorders, and at least all 2.5" FireWire 800 drives I've seen only have one port, effectively ending the chain. Which is why it would be useful with two ports, I don't care much whether there's actually two separate FireWire buses. Granted, it would be very nice with a separate FireWire 400 bus, since one such device will slow down the whole chain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
A company should listen to its customers and aim to grow its market share, for otherwise, it should cease to exist.
Well, either it will disappear on it's own accord, or if it doesn't, we could regulate it to death. That would be nice, wouldn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva
But 4x is needed to play correctly according to THX specs. If we get 4x and it plays BD, what's the problem?
The PS3 seems to do just fine with its 2x drive.
Quote:
Why haven't we seen a BD drive yet? No slot-load drives have been made, YET.
There are BD slot load drives. The PS3 for one, and there are other products on the market. Dell offers a slim-line external version for their Adamo.
...Mac owners are an entirely different type of user. Lenovo buyers are arguably more business oriented and more likely to use a laptop in an office environment with neon lighting overhead. Mac's on the other hand have much smaller penetration in the office except for design firms and the like which oddly enough, tend to prefer glossy screens due to the color, clarity, and sharpness offered by glossy screens.
I also don't think it was a stupid move on Apple's part, and apparently neither do Apple's stock prices.
I too would have quoted your long winded reply but but you're right, it would have been rude. While I don't feel cheated by the glossy screen only option, I have to point out that you made two of the weakest arguments for a glossy screen I could have imagined, see above. To say that your evidence was anecdotal is stating the obvious.
Apple's decision to go with glossy probably had more to do with streamlining production and the obvious benefits you pointed out (improved color, sharpness and durability).The truth is that monitors were never matte before lcd's and somehow we all got by, but after so many years of using a matte screen it's initially hard to imagine going back. There seems to be a little flip-flopping in the industry and it's "confusing" people. Fortunately we use mostly 30" displays but I'll be ticked if they finally go glossy and the crew hates them, but I doubt it.
After reading through the entire thread, the feeling I get is that there are alot of people wanting to include Blue-Ray into the imac and of course the latest CPU and GPU and hard disk and monitor and while we are at it, why not everything else that can be upgraded.
I seriously believe it will never happen. The imac will still be classified as a basic desktop suitable for 'most' needs. It would have improvements but nothing earth shattering. It will never ever cross into the territory of the PRO series. Apple has always been very clear and adamant on this. If you want pure processing power and your computing needs are stressing out the imac, then whatever you are doing must be on a demanding and professional level. Thus, the Pro would suit you and as a business investment, it is relatively cheap based on a ROI basis.
However, if you have the PC mentality and wants to have to the ability of huge processing power with powerful graphic cards but not really utilising it everyday and yet you want it at a similar PC price, Forget it, it will never happen.
The imac would see gradual improvements to pace itself against the PC market at a similar price. Apple may argue that their price is competitive but everybody knows that there really exist a premium if you want to buy Apple products. I am not arguing if the premium is worthwhile to pay "as to each its own" but we cannot deny that it exist. Apple to me personally is just trying to play a basic "ice lemonade" game. Lower the price, get more sales. However, does the increase in sales justify the loss of revenue due to lower prices?
Apple are just tweaking the numbers. Once they feel that the have achieved the best combination or if they feel that by lowering the price would not generate sufficient higher sales, than I am very sure that it would stop. The refresh of the imac is due to necessity not to improved technology. Apple would never be in the forefront of hardware technology but in the software aspect, they are great.
As far as i am concerned, as long as they don't screw up the OS like previously and they maintained the high standard of the OS, I will continue to buy the Macbooks and the imacs. However, If the OS is screwed, based on design and hardware specifications, I will never pay so much for the imac.
Possibly off topic... If they had BluRay disc rental here in Malaysia I would easily pop-in a BluRay reader into my gaming PC and be set. Gaming + HiDef personal desktop PC with Windows 7... Until then... it's back to Wolfenstein (teh latest 3D shooter) and various *cough* *cough* downloads.
However, if you have the PC mentality and wants to have to the ability of huge processing power with powerful graphic cards but not really utilising it everyday and yet you want it at a similar PC price, Forget it, it will never happen...
For my PC my goal was not the latest and greatest but the most value for money for what I wanted to do, which was enjoy smoothly playing the latest PC games.
That meant the latest quadcore CPUs were *not important*. I went with a dualcore AMD, thus saving on generally more expensive Intel CPUs and motherboards. Then I went with a "mid-range" but good value for money ATI Radeon 4830 512MB ~ still a decent GPU 6 months down the line.
BluRay, like I said, is just a disc drive upgrade away...
However I had to compromise on noise (at least 4 fans running in my PC). Ugly cables (luckily covered from view behind my Samsung matte 21" 16:9 screen (I would have preferred 16:10 but well...)
Of course, my web development work now is purely on Mac and VMWare Fusion for testing in Windows. Gaming+movies/tv shows --> PC.
jetpack you do have a point, especially with the Intel quadcore and Core i7 "scam", people are buying extremely powerful CPUs and not even doing much with it! I can't stand Dell shoving in great CPUs but skimping horribly on the graphics. These "mid-range" Dells can't even play 3D games smoothly at higher resolutions and detail despite having quadcore (because GPU is still the key factor in gaming).
My July 2008 iMac gets VERY, VERY HOT on the top left and top back. I had to install smcFanControl just to keep the CPU from getting to 70 degrees C.
Even then, especially when Flash is being used in a web site game, the CPU goes to 55C and the top left gets hot. Without smcFanControl installed to turn the fans up in speed, the top left gets so hot that I can't hold my hand on it for more than 10 seconds.
I actually had the same problem with the first iMac I bought, and had to send it back, but the second one was exactly the same.
It sits at room temperature with lots of room above, below, to each side, and behind.
So, yes, there are heat problems with some of the iMacs.
If what is said is true though, and it doesn't cause problems with the components near the heat, or even the screen which gets quite warm at the top left, then I'm happy with it.
I'm just hoping the heat doesn't significantly shorten the life of my iMac because I can only afford a new computer about every 5 years or longer.
Greg
My Late 2007 iMac ran pretty hot prior to 10.5.8, but it has never caused any problem for me. Ever since 10.5.8 and later upgraded to SL, it's running cooler and cooler. CPU is usually around 40 degree here and rarely goes over 50 even when running Windows via Fusion so I wonder how do you actually use your iMac?
You can install iStat Menu's if you are curious about fan speed and CPU temperature. My iMac,8 get's a lot of heat coming from the fan exhausts, but remains pretty cold for the most part unless I'm doing heavy encoding from Blu-Ray or something similar. I've actually noticed more heat coming from the display than the back of the casing.
Kingston's family of DataTraveler USB Flash drives are among the most recognized around the world and are always being updated. One of the newest additions to the Kingston USB Flash Drive series family is the DataTraveler 112. This drive is aimed at the mainstream USB Flash Drive market as it comes with standard read/write speeds and a very competitive price point. With summer coming to a close and the back-to-school shopping season in full swing, storage devices like this should be high on the list of many of our readers.
Possibly off topic... If they had BluRay disc rental here in Malaysia I would easily pop-in a BluRay reader into my gaming PC and be set. Gaming + HiDef personal desktop PC with Windows 7... Until then... it's back to Wolfenstein (teh latest 3D shooter) and various *cough* *cough* downloads.
can the MBP15" 3.02 HGz play wolfenstein ?? is it like cod ?
You should really make up your mind. Earlier you said Apple wouldn't add Blu-Ray because it competed against iTunes downloads. Now you're claiming it's because of licensing issues. So which is it?
Jobs is the master of saying BS that a lot of people mysteriously believe. And that's what his licensing comments were, BS.
The idea that Apple is holding out on features on their computers because they might potentially compete with another of their products is one more reason my next computer WON'T be a Mac. One good thing that the PC world has going for it is that Microsoft can't play gate keeper to the hardware like Apple does.
Why don't you like apple ??? I read all your post and thought you was a mac owner ?
The thing with blu ray is that its still way over priced for so few good titles that if the format dies down then people will be stuck with a shit drive in their mac. Blu ray is great for block buster movues but you tube or my dinner with Andre seem like over kill. The fact is the most expensive real estate in the world is the mac computer . So putting anything in takes a lot of doing . Apple has a small mac lime up but sells millions so any mistakes can wreak havoc . I guess you own A DELL so you have 75 models to choose from . Enjoy them . Millions of people love dell / what your name at the dell forum ???
kidding
9
ps your full of beans you will buy a mac and you will be thrilled . OK
Apple's decision to go with glossy probably had more to do with streamlining production and the obvious benefits you pointed out (improved color, sharpness and durability).The truth is that monitors were never matte before lcd's and somehow we all got by, but after so many years of using a matte screen it's initially hard to imagine going back. There seems to be a little flip-flopping in the industry and it's "confusing" people. Fortunately we use mostly 30" displays but I'll be ticked if they finally go glossy and the crew hates them, but I doubt it.
MY friend apple engineer's all stood back speechless at the incredible beauty of the new gamma adjusted display with the <<green>> glass on top / Matte looks much duller and fades over time .
i own at least 5 working macs at a time for over 7 yrs and the new MBP15 3.02GHZ is as good or better than my hd tv . All my matte laptops including the recent black MB feel kinda icky for there graphics my imac 2 yr old still has good graphics.
So your thought that apple would lose quality for speeded up production is wrong . they speeded up production and made a great product
My July 2008 iMac gets VERY, VERY HOT on the top left and top back. I had to install smcFanControl just to keep the CPU from getting to 70 degrees C.
You should not be worried about that. The CPU is rated to handle more than 90 degrees C (lazy to check now, but could be 97-98). But you want it below 55? The processor has built-in protection, but it is unlikely you will ever trigger it, unless the cooling system or the processor are defective.
I had my MacBook Pro at 92 C sometimes (heavy load of course, not really often, but happens). The annoyance is that you can not put it on your lap when it is that hot, but I leave it as is on my desk. No issues so far (more than 2 years).
I'd like to see a keyboard with proper navigation keys.
Let me see, was that Fn or option ( or is that alt? ) or cmd or ctrl? Does that one move the cursor or not? And they are all different in OpenOffice, and Excel, and Excel in VMWare... That is NOT intuitive.
Comments
With a 4% worldwide market share for computers, no desktop computer with a desktop CPU, no licensing of Mac OS X, I wouldn't say that things are so great for Apple under Steve Jobs' leadership.
Steve Jobs demanded backdated stock option bonuses worth more than a billion dollars, but can Steve Jobs really increase the market share of Mac computers by allowing more models or licensing Mac OS X to computer desktop manufacturers like HP and Dell?
If Apple cannot or won't build a desktop computer with a desktop CPU, it should license Mac OS X to companies who can build computers that people want to buy. The iMac is an overpriced, all-in-one computer with a mobile, slower, cooler CPU and graphic card because the iMac is too thin.
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.
Um . . . Apple is doing exactly what customers want. That kind of explains record quarters, record Mac sales (in a recession), outpacing the rest of the industry several years running, domination of the Premium segment of the market ($1000+ noteboks), Macs #1 in customer satisfaction several years running, unprecedented increases in marketshare, the list just goes on and on.
Why the hell would Apple license out OS X?
Have you been in a coma since 2006?
Not sure if Apple is giving the trolls what they want, though. Sorry about that.
The HP info is interesting but not relevant to a Mac buyer. Mac owners are an entirely different type of user. Lenovo buyers are arguably more business oriented and more likely to use a laptop in an office environment with neon lighting overhead. Mac's on the other hand have much smaller penetration in the office except for design firms and the like which oddly enough, tend to prefer glossy screens due to the color, clarity, and sharpness offered by glossy screens.
If you don't like it, then don't buy a Mac. It's just that simple. If they happen to re-introduce matte in whatever model you feel you must have, again that's great. Just don't imply that people who prefer glossy are newbs and stupid for their choices (obviously a large number of folks if it's enough for Apple to change their offerings). I am certainly no newb to PC's. I've been working with them since I started on a TRS-80 and a trusty cassette tape for storage. I also don't think it was a stupid move on Apple's part, and apparently neither do Apple's stock prices.
Dying? Not even close. Maybe less popular. But desktops will never die.
Yes, I do think quad cores and big GPUS in an imac will change everything. I buy based on specs. So this would result in me buying an imac. It's the specs that get things done better and faster. Better gaming performance. No current imac is much faster than my desktop that I built 3 years ago for less money. It's the towers that offer the upgrade options. And they are cheaper to build.
When you start using laptop parts prices go up.
I don't see where a desktop needs to get thinner or lighter. Or portable. You aren't moving it around or taking it with you. That's what laptops are for. And if it were thinner you'd have a harder time getting desktop parts in it. Laptop parts are too limited and too expensive.
Besides, it sits under your desk. Who the hell cares what it looks like?
I'd rather have something I can upgrade easily. My desktop now has lasted me for 3 years with only minor upgrades(ram and video card) and I could keep it going years more. I do own a laptop. I bought a cheap $300 acer. I just needed some for use around the house. Mainly in the kitchen for recipes and emails and such. I did want to get a macbook but it's hard to justify the price when I just needed internet access.
You, my friend, are a PC
Haven't used Intel GPU's in 10+ months. They are using an nVidia GPU. 52.6 gb/s compared to Radeon 3200HD's 38, Intel GMA 4500HD's 29 and GMA 950's 10.6... I think it works.
Maybe you haven't read up on this, but all Intel mainstream mobile GPUs (Arrandale) will have Intel graphics on the CPU package. You don't get a choice.
Having multiple FW ports is OK, but every FW device (hell even the 2.5" Laptop SATA case I have has 2 FW 400 ports) has multiple FW ports because they can be daisy-chained and not loose any speed (to an extent, if you have more than 20 devices maybe you should consider a Mac Pro).
IIRC, camcorders, and at least all 2.5" FireWire 800 drives I've seen only have one port, effectively ending the chain. Which is why it would be useful with two ports, I don't care much whether there's actually two separate FireWire buses. Granted, it would be very nice with a separate FireWire 400 bus, since one such device will slow down the whole chain.
A company should listen to its customers and aim to grow its market share, for otherwise, it should cease to exist.
Well, either it will disappear on it's own accord, or if it doesn't, we could regulate it to death. That would be nice, wouldn't it?
But 4x is needed to play correctly according to THX specs. If we get 4x and it plays BD, what's the problem?
The PS3 seems to do just fine with its 2x drive.
Why haven't we seen a BD drive yet? No slot-load drives have been made, YET.
There are BD slot load drives. The PS3 for one, and there are other products on the market. Dell offers a slim-line external version for their Adamo.
...Mac owners are an entirely different type of user. Lenovo buyers are arguably more business oriented and more likely to use a laptop in an office environment with neon lighting overhead. Mac's on the other hand have much smaller penetration in the office except for design firms and the like which oddly enough, tend to prefer glossy screens due to the color, clarity, and sharpness offered by glossy screens.
I also don't think it was a stupid move on Apple's part, and apparently neither do Apple's stock prices.
I too would have quoted your long winded reply but but you're right, it would have been rude. While I don't feel cheated by the glossy screen only option, I have to point out that you made two of the weakest arguments for a glossy screen I could have imagined, see above. To say that your evidence was anecdotal is stating the obvious.
Apple's decision to go with glossy probably had more to do with streamlining production and the obvious benefits you pointed out (improved color, sharpness and durability).The truth is that monitors were never matte before lcd's and somehow we all got by, but after so many years of using a matte screen it's initially hard to imagine going back. There seems to be a little flip-flopping in the industry and it's "confusing" people. Fortunately we use mostly 30" displays but I'll be ticked if they finally go glossy and the crew hates them, but I doubt it.
After reading through the entire thread, the feeling I get is that there are alot of people wanting to include Blue-Ray into the imac and of course the latest CPU and GPU and hard disk and monitor and while we are at it, why not everything else that can be upgraded.
I seriously believe it will never happen. The imac will still be classified as a basic desktop suitable for 'most' needs. It would have improvements but nothing earth shattering. It will never ever cross into the territory of the PRO series. Apple has always been very clear and adamant on this. If you want pure processing power and your computing needs are stressing out the imac, then whatever you are doing must be on a demanding and professional level. Thus, the Pro would suit you and as a business investment, it is relatively cheap based on a ROI basis.
However, if you have the PC mentality and wants to have to the ability of huge processing power with powerful graphic cards but not really utilising it everyday and yet you want it at a similar PC price, Forget it, it will never happen.
The imac would see gradual improvements to pace itself against the PC market at a similar price. Apple may argue that their price is competitive but everybody knows that there really exist a premium if you want to buy Apple products. I am not arguing if the premium is worthwhile to pay "as to each its own" but we cannot deny that it exist. Apple to me personally is just trying to play a basic "ice lemonade" game. Lower the price, get more sales. However, does the increase in sales justify the loss of revenue due to lower prices?
Apple are just tweaking the numbers. Once they feel that the have achieved the best combination or if they feel that by lowering the price would not generate sufficient higher sales, than I am very sure that it would stop. The refresh of the imac is due to necessity not to improved technology. Apple would never be in the forefront of hardware technology but in the software aspect, they are great.
As far as i am concerned, as long as they don't screw up the OS like previously and they maintained the high standard of the OS, I will continue to buy the Macbooks and the imacs. However, If the OS is screwed, based on design and hardware specifications, I will never pay so much for the imac.
However, if you have the PC mentality and wants to have to the ability of huge processing power with powerful graphic cards but not really utilising it everyday and yet you want it at a similar PC price, Forget it, it will never happen...
For my PC my goal was not the latest and greatest but the most value for money for what I wanted to do, which was enjoy smoothly playing the latest PC games.
That meant the latest quadcore CPUs were *not important*. I went with a dualcore AMD, thus saving on generally more expensive Intel CPUs and motherboards. Then I went with a "mid-range" but good value for money ATI Radeon 4830 512MB ~ still a decent GPU 6 months down the line.
BluRay, like I said, is just a disc drive upgrade away...
However I had to compromise on noise (at least 4 fans running in my PC). Ugly cables (luckily covered from view behind my Samsung matte 21" 16:9 screen (I would have preferred 16:10 but well...)
Of course, my web development work now is purely on Mac and VMWare Fusion for testing in Windows. Gaming+movies/tv shows --> PC.
jetpack you do have a point, especially with the Intel quadcore and Core i7 "scam", people are buying extremely powerful CPUs and not even doing much with it! I can't stand Dell shoving in great CPUs but skimping horribly on the graphics. These "mid-range" Dells can't even play 3D games smoothly at higher resolutions and detail despite having quadcore (because GPU is still the key factor in gaming).
My July 2008 iMac gets VERY, VERY HOT on the top left and top back. I had to install smcFanControl just to keep the CPU from getting to 70 degrees C.
Even then, especially when Flash is being used in a web site game, the CPU goes to 55C and the top left gets hot. Without smcFanControl installed to turn the fans up in speed, the top left gets so hot that I can't hold my hand on it for more than 10 seconds.
I actually had the same problem with the first iMac I bought, and had to send it back, but the second one was exactly the same.
It sits at room temperature with lots of room above, below, to each side, and behind.
So, yes, there are heat problems with some of the iMacs.
If what is said is true though, and it doesn't cause problems with the components near the heat, or even the screen which gets quite warm at the top left, then I'm happy with it.
I'm just hoping the heat doesn't significantly shorten the life of my iMac because I can only afford a new computer about every 5 years or longer.
Greg
My Late 2007 iMac ran pretty hot prior to 10.5.8, but it has never caused any problem for me. Ever since 10.5.8 and later upgraded to SL, it's running cooler and cooler. CPU is usually around 40 degree here and rarely goes over 50 even when running Windows via Fusion so I wonder how do you actually use your iMac?
sina
baidu
[url= www.google.com]google[/url
[link= http://www.yahoo.com]yahoo[/link]
Kingston's family of DataTraveler USB Flash drives are among the most recognized around the world and are always being updated. One of the newest additions to the Kingston USB Flash Drive series family is the DataTraveler 112. This drive is aimed at the mainstream USB Flash Drive market as it comes with standard read/write speeds and a very competitive price point. With summer coming to a close and the back-to-school shopping season in full swing, storage devices like this should be high on the list of many of our readers.
Possibly off topic... If they had BluRay disc rental here in Malaysia I would easily pop-in a BluRay reader into my gaming PC and be set. Gaming + HiDef personal desktop PC with Windows 7... Until then... it's back to Wolfenstein (teh latest 3D shooter) and various *cough* *cough* downloads.
can the MBP15" 3.02 HGz play wolfenstein ?? is it like cod ?
You should really make up your mind. Earlier you said Apple wouldn't add Blu-Ray because it competed against iTunes downloads. Now you're claiming it's because of licensing issues. So which is it?
Jobs is the master of saying BS that a lot of people mysteriously believe. And that's what his licensing comments were, BS.
The idea that Apple is holding out on features on their computers because they might potentially compete with another of their products is one more reason my next computer WON'T be a Mac. One good thing that the PC world has going for it is that Microsoft can't play gate keeper to the hardware like Apple does.
Why don't you like apple ??? I read all your post and thought you was a mac owner ?
The thing with blu ray is that its still way over priced for so few good titles that if the format dies down then people will be stuck with a shit drive in their mac. Blu ray is great for block buster movues but you tube or my dinner with Andre seem like over kill. The fact is the most expensive real estate in the world is the mac computer . So putting anything in takes a lot of doing . Apple has a small mac lime up but sells millions so any mistakes can wreak havoc . I guess you own A DELL so you have 75 models to choose from . Enjoy them . Millions of people love dell / what your name at the dell forum ???
kidding
9
ps your full of beans you will buy a mac and you will be thrilled . OK
Dude, why do you bother? You'll be banned in a bit as a spammer, and your content deleted. Troll with your adds elsewhere.
but but his name is honest ??
Apple's decision to go with glossy probably had more to do with streamlining production and the obvious benefits you pointed out (improved color, sharpness and durability).The truth is that monitors were never matte before lcd's and somehow we all got by, but after so many years of using a matte screen it's initially hard to imagine going back. There seems to be a little flip-flopping in the industry and it's "confusing" people. Fortunately we use mostly 30" displays but I'll be ticked if they finally go glossy and the crew hates them, but I doubt it.
MY friend apple engineer's all stood back speechless at the incredible beauty of the new gamma adjusted display with the <<green>> glass on top / Matte looks much duller and fades over time .
i own at least 5 working macs at a time for over 7 yrs and the new MBP15 3.02GHZ is as good or better than my hd tv . All my matte laptops including the recent black MB feel kinda icky for there graphics my imac 2 yr old still has good graphics.
So your thought that apple would lose quality for speeded up production is wrong . they speeded up production and made a great product
thats apple !!
12 years ago .....
.... Apple was worth 11 billion dollars.
A company should listen to its customers and aim to grow its market share, for otherwise, it should cease to exist.
Today Apple is worth 180 billion dollars.
You appear to not know what you are talking about or you are just trolling.
My July 2008 iMac gets VERY, VERY HOT on the top left and top back. I had to install smcFanControl just to keep the CPU from getting to 70 degrees C.
You should not be worried about that. The CPU is rated to handle more than 90 degrees C (lazy to check now, but could be 97-98). But you want it below 55? The processor has built-in protection, but it is unlikely you will ever trigger it, unless the cooling system or the processor are defective.
I had my MacBook Pro at 92 C sometimes (heavy load of course, not really often, but happens). The annoyance is that you can not put it on your lap when it is that hot, but I leave it as is on my desk. No issues so far (more than 2 years).
Let me see, was that Fn or option ( or is that alt? ) or cmd or ctrl? Does that one move the cursor or not? And they are all different in OpenOffice, and Excel, and Excel in VMWare... That is NOT intuitive.