Cloudane
Jan 30, 05:50 PM
You can trade online from an e-commerce firm, such as this one--
http://www.iii.co.uk/about/
Thanks, will take a look :)
http://www.iii.co.uk/about/
Thanks, will take a look :)
j0417
Apr 22, 05:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think it makes sense that so many different sources have different ideas. After the iphone4 leak I could see Apple purposely leaking false info to keep the hype up until september and prevent a real leak. Any thoughts on that?
I think it makes sense that so many different sources have different ideas. After the iphone4 leak I could see Apple purposely leaking false info to keep the hype up until september and prevent a real leak. Any thoughts on that?
iLucas
Apr 29, 02:54 PM
I don't even think .99 for a song is that bad. But .69 is even better!
baleensavage
Jul 11, 02:21 PM
Sounds more like a PSP killer than an iPod Killer. Looks like Microsoft is trying to move into Sony's territory.
more...
RodThePlod
Jul 28, 02:34 PM
Microsoft has waited WAY too long to make any type of impact on the portable music device industry. iPod has been around now for too long, and has too strong of a grip on the marketshare for anyone to try to threaten their hold. This Zune thing will have to have some aspect to it that is totally it's own for anyone to take any notice to it whatsoever.
I just set up a webpage where you can cast your vote for Zune or iPod. Check out www.will-zune-beat-ipod.com
:D
RodC
--
www.expodition.com - for iPod users who love to travel
I just set up a webpage where you can cast your vote for Zune or iPod. Check out www.will-zune-beat-ipod.com
:D
RodC
--
www.expodition.com - for iPod users who love to travel
cwir
Apr 14, 02:55 PM
what's about battery drain ? anybody noticed something ?
more...
Cigsm
Apr 30, 07:35 PM
Where? I just checked the Top 200 Best Selling iTunes Songs & there's only ONE .69c song all the way at #196.
In fact, there's only 3 .99c songs, two of which are in the bottom 25.
I realize that this was the labels doing & not Apple, but that's crazy.
I've seen numerous $0.69 songs. If you're always looking at brand new stuff you may not see them.
In fact, there's only 3 .99c songs, two of which are in the bottom 25.
I realize that this was the labels doing & not Apple, but that's crazy.
I've seen numerous $0.69 songs. If you're always looking at brand new stuff you may not see them.
iRobby
Apr 25, 04:14 PM
I don't understand why is the article saying Apple delaying orders when the Apple Online Store says ships in 24 hrs not 1-3 weeks
more...
Detlev_73
Jun 6, 10:22 AM
You sound like a wonderful human being.
Your sarcasm is inappropriate. This poster has a right to her/his opinion. There are plenty of folks that think that kids are a bad idea, especially in their case. I'm proud of the fact I don't have kids: I'd beat them just like Joan Crawford did in Mommy Dearest. :mad:
Your sarcasm is inappropriate. This poster has a right to her/his opinion. There are plenty of folks that think that kids are a bad idea, especially in their case. I'm proud of the fact I don't have kids: I'd beat them just like Joan Crawford did in Mommy Dearest. :mad:
Lord Sam
Jan 26, 07:25 AM
There are many reasons for this. The crowd of Apple lovers wanted more from Macworld than what they got, and the market has been terrible lately. Their second quarter revenue predictions were very conservative, and some people think they have shone the brightest they will ever, and just don't think their worth it. I disagree, but as much as I would like to be, I'm not the stock market.
more...
Moyank24
Apr 20, 04:25 PM
Well this has been slow going...where are all the rest of the usual suspects? No Jav? Or Ravenvii?
Benjamins
Apr 13, 03:36 PM
not that I don't want an Apple brand TV, but it's really hard to see how that's going to happen.
more...
danvdr
Apr 25, 11:30 AM
I've got a 2.5 yr old MacBook that is feeling stretched with Aperture. I've been thinking that an iMac / iPad combination would be a good replacement.
Anyone with experience in getting iPads to work with iMacs (specifically remote access)?
Anyone with experience in getting iPads to work with iMacs (specifically remote access)?
RITZFit
Dec 1, 10:55 PM
Deez...by some miracle :(
more...
obeygiant
May 1, 10:28 PM
Let the conspiracies theories begin.
zacmac
Apr 13, 03:32 PM
a television doesn't make sense. For one thing it'll be too expensive. I say focus on making the apple tv a better product.
more...
mattcube64
Jan 29, 11:46 AM
Uh? what is that?
It's an ImacQuarium :-)
I plan to go buy a fish and some decorations this afternoon.
It's an ImacQuarium :-)
I plan to go buy a fish and some decorations this afternoon.
vincenz
Apr 29, 04:08 PM
Not bad, not bad, but it almost looks like a move that's a little too late...
fatboyslick
May 4, 05:21 AM
ugh. i always laugh at anyone who ends their 'predictions' with "you heard it here first", 'cause they nearly always end up being the most inaccurate.
Travis's claim isnt new or "heard it hear first though". It's been gossiped about on this site for weeks.
Travis's claim isnt new or "heard it hear first though". It's been gossiped about on this site for weeks.
dexthageek
Apr 13, 02:44 PM
Every time an analyst speaks, a fairy dies. :(
Keep "Clapping!'
Keep "Clapping!'
daveschroeder
Oct 23, 08:35 AM
Dave,
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
blackpond
Apr 29, 03:49 PM
Its been my observation that most of the prices on existing content was increased to 1.29. I don't have hard number to back this up, just my observation that most of the content was bumped to the higher price point from being at 0.99 before.
It's based on demand. If it's still popular its more expensive - no matter how old it is.
It's based on demand. If it's still popular its more expensive - no matter how old it is.
twoodcc
Nov 26, 08:01 AM
The GeForce 9800 will work from what I have seen, thy this thread for more info. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=461892) and here (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1322096) google "gpu folding" to find all kinds of info
Let us know how it goes if you do get one to try.
thanks for the reply and links. i'm not sure if the 9800GT is the route i'll go. but if i could run 2 of those, i'd probably get better ppd than just the smp on my mac pro. i might even try a better card if it'll work
Let us know how it goes if you do get one to try.
thanks for the reply and links. i'm not sure if the 9800GT is the route i'll go. but if i could run 2 of those, i'd probably get better ppd than just the smp on my mac pro. i might even try a better card if it'll work
Reach9
Apr 12, 12:26 PM
The iPhone 4 will still be the best smartphone on the market when the iPhone 5 comes out.
Holding it back makes a lot of sense at this point.
*facepalm*, not this fanboy again..
Anyway, regards to the topic. The September event seems plausible, and i know many people speculated it to be the case before as well. Makes sense because they can't really upgrade the iPod line that dramatically anymore. Thus they can introduce the new iPhone 5 and iPod Touch together, without people already knowing what the iPod Touch will encompass.
Only question is, can Apple keep the demand in Fall? with iPod line, iPhone and Mac upgrades?
On a side note people, don't put the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 under the same rumor umbrella. Clearly because, the iPhone 5 will come out this year, and the iPad 3 won't.
Holding it back makes a lot of sense at this point.
*facepalm*, not this fanboy again..
Anyway, regards to the topic. The September event seems plausible, and i know many people speculated it to be the case before as well. Makes sense because they can't really upgrade the iPod line that dramatically anymore. Thus they can introduce the new iPhone 5 and iPod Touch together, without people already knowing what the iPod Touch will encompass.
Only question is, can Apple keep the demand in Fall? with iPod line, iPhone and Mac upgrades?
On a side note people, don't put the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 under the same rumor umbrella. Clearly because, the iPhone 5 will come out this year, and the iPad 3 won't.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário