SiliconAddict
Nov 16, 03:33 PM
reposted from closed thread...
Why? AMD's laptop CPU's suck....power that is. Please god no. The Core line has a VERY bright future. That coupled with the DEEP discounts that Apple is most certainly getting makes an AMD migration stupid.
What this move might be about is memory. AMD isn't just about CPU's. They make other chips as well. That and with the ATI buyout Apple may be courting AMD to continue to have access to ATI's wares. At any rate I just don't see this happening. Go to Apple's site. Intel's name is plastered all over the freaking place. Apple isn't going to rain on such a relationship 1 year after establishing it.
Why? AMD's laptop CPU's suck....power that is. Please god no. The Core line has a VERY bright future. That coupled with the DEEP discounts that Apple is most certainly getting makes an AMD migration stupid.
What this move might be about is memory. AMD isn't just about CPU's. They make other chips as well. That and with the ATI buyout Apple may be courting AMD to continue to have access to ATI's wares. At any rate I just don't see this happening. Go to Apple's site. Intel's name is plastered all over the freaking place. Apple isn't going to rain on such a relationship 1 year after establishing it.
ten-oak-druid
Mar 24, 07:11 PM
Even though OS X got better with each version, I immediately noticed better performance with my Pismo G3 400MHz machine when I installed the original OS X. I remember thinking it was great how fast the system booted up. I never looked back except to run a few apps in classic the first few years.
I've always found it strange that the version numbers are so redundant. OS X 10.5.5 for example. I just use the roman numeral and drop the second 10. I would write OS X.5.5 for example.
I've always found it strange that the version numbers are so redundant. OS X 10.5.5 for example. I just use the roman numeral and drop the second 10. I would write OS X.5.5 for example.
citizenzen
Apr 15, 03:13 PM
From the article ...
After passage in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and singing by Gov. Jerry Brown, both of which seem likely, California would become the first state to make curricula include notable gay Americans along with the contributions of women and various ethnic groups.
Shaun Travers, a San Diego activist, told San Diego 6: "It's very important that we represent all of California and that includes the LGBT community. Our people and our history."
But opponents said the move would add non-essential material to already-short instruction time.
Hmmm ... they don't seem to share that same concern when it comes to teaching Creationism in science class. :rolleyes:
After passage in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and singing by Gov. Jerry Brown, both of which seem likely, California would become the first state to make curricula include notable gay Americans along with the contributions of women and various ethnic groups.
Shaun Travers, a San Diego activist, told San Diego 6: "It's very important that we represent all of California and that includes the LGBT community. Our people and our history."
But opponents said the move would add non-essential material to already-short instruction time.
Hmmm ... they don't seem to share that same concern when it comes to teaching Creationism in science class. :rolleyes:
holmesf
Apr 30, 10:19 PM
You are talking about things that would happen if they closed it today. I said 15 years. :)
And it's not a doomsday proposition or anything. That's just where the entire industry will go.
15 years from now? By then the tech world will be so unrecognizable we might as well not debate it. 15 years ago I was using a Mac LC, all my software came from the local mac reseller on floppy disk, and I was just beginning to hear about this whole "Internet" thing. I don't think anybody at the time imagined things turning out quite as they did. Even predicting things 5 years down the line is pretty damned hard in the tech world.
Which is to say, you may very well be right when we talk about 15 years from now. On the other hand, perhaps 15 years from now the whole notion of an app store will seem like a quaint remnant of the past.
And it's not a doomsday proposition or anything. That's just where the entire industry will go.
15 years from now? By then the tech world will be so unrecognizable we might as well not debate it. 15 years ago I was using a Mac LC, all my software came from the local mac reseller on floppy disk, and I was just beginning to hear about this whole "Internet" thing. I don't think anybody at the time imagined things turning out quite as they did. Even predicting things 5 years down the line is pretty damned hard in the tech world.
Which is to say, you may very well be right when we talk about 15 years from now. On the other hand, perhaps 15 years from now the whole notion of an app store will seem like a quaint remnant of the past.
more...
maflynn
Apr 11, 01:43 PM
umm my computer from 2004 could run Windows 8 (slowly but it could) because it does have a 64 bit processor in it. I also believe W8 is going to be 64 bit only. W7 was the last 32 bit OS.
As it should at this point, 64bit processors have been out long enough that this shouldn't be a problem.
Those people who still have 32bit processors are generally not the type of people who will be upgrading to w8 anyways.
As it should at this point, 64bit processors have been out long enough that this shouldn't be a problem.
Those people who still have 32bit processors are generally not the type of people who will be upgrading to w8 anyways.
seanf
Mar 26, 02:53 PM
Well, chances are if it's being used it could well just be sitting there by the living room TV!I agree. To the OP - could you not just have a sneaky look through the Window and see if you can spot a 360?
Sean :)
Sean :)
more...
avkills
Sep 12, 06:58 AM
Apple would be stupid to make a branded portable projector. That market is already saturated by Epson, Eiki, InFocus, NEC, Sony, Panasonic, need I go on...
I think the wireless video streaming device makes more sense. Make the wireless part interchangeable for future upgrades. 720p H.264 could easily stream over 10mbit connections. Better include a HDMI connector, component video out, s-video out and optical/analog audio. If not, it is dead in the water.
-mark
I think the wireless video streaming device makes more sense. Make the wireless part interchangeable for future upgrades. 720p H.264 could easily stream over 10mbit connections. Better include a HDMI connector, component video out, s-video out and optical/analog audio. If not, it is dead in the water.
-mark
AussieScozza
Sep 12, 06:12 AM
With all due respect Sunfast. You are getting excited about a team I suspect will leave Australia with little more than suntans. The urn will not take much to reclaim my friend. Hardly an Apple upstager. Maybe in the near future you can watch each English loss on your new widescreen iPod.
more...
nick9191
Apr 12, 07:51 AM
The price of office is built into the price of the computer, just as the price of iLife is built into the price of a mac - standard accounting practice. You're really not getting iLife for free just like you're not getting office for free.
Maybe some computers come with Office as a promotional deal, and if they do, that's up to the OEM, not Microsoft. Nonetheless, I've not seen any PC come with more than a 30 day trial of Office.
Maybe some computers come with Office as a promotional deal, and if they do, that's up to the OEM, not Microsoft. Nonetheless, I've not seen any PC come with more than a 30 day trial of Office.
.jpg "cute quotes and sayings about")
blackburn
Apr 29, 01:21 PM
Looking forward to the new version of file vault. Let's hope that we don't need any wierd hack to enable 64 bits (on macbooks) or to enable trim on 3rd party ssds.
more...
ktappe
Mar 28, 03:23 PM
What exactly is a 'hater'? Someone that disagrees with the company line? Someone with a dissenting opinion?
Strongly agree. "Dissent" does not equal "hate". On the contrary, dissenting voices are what make our society so grand.
There are LOTS of completely valid reasons for a perfectly good app to not be in the App Store. There are many apps that are very useful, productive, and of high quality that by their very nature can't get into the App store due to its rules. Rules that forbid the exact reason some of those apps exist; such as modifying the OS in ways the user needs or by doing things a better way than Apple does. As a result, these "awards" are tainted from the very get-go and I plan to dismiss them accordingly.
Strongly agree. "Dissent" does not equal "hate". On the contrary, dissenting voices are what make our society so grand.
There are LOTS of completely valid reasons for a perfectly good app to not be in the App Store. There are many apps that are very useful, productive, and of high quality that by their very nature can't get into the App store due to its rules. Rules that forbid the exact reason some of those apps exist; such as modifying the OS in ways the user needs or by doing things a better way than Apple does. As a result, these "awards" are tainted from the very get-go and I plan to dismiss them accordingly.
zioxide
Jan 12, 12:57 AM
Everyone is making comments that suggest that the Gizmodo guys are professionals and have broken some code of ethics.
They are BLOGGERS. There are no rules in blogging. There are no codes of ethics.
Sure they were over the top, but that drove traffic to their site. The only thing they are worried about is traffic to the site, that is how they make money.
Should they be banned? Why? It's not like they are journalists.
They were there with a press pass.
Anyways, according to a story that just went to the digg frontpage, the Gizmodo employee who did it has been banned from future CES events and they're still discussing actions against Gizmodo and Gawker media.
I say ban them. That was retarded. Companies pay tons of money for these shows trying to get them to go off without a hitch. Having displays randomly turning off is bad for them. It could cost them millions of dollars and could have even cost the people who set everything up their jobs.
Additionally, there's still a debate about whether bloggers are journalists... personally I'd say they are. But some idiots doing this just gives a bad name to bloggers everywhere.
I hope their whole company is banned from CES and other events so that they go out of business.
They are BLOGGERS. There are no rules in blogging. There are no codes of ethics.
Sure they were over the top, but that drove traffic to their site. The only thing they are worried about is traffic to the site, that is how they make money.
Should they be banned? Why? It's not like they are journalists.
They were there with a press pass.
Anyways, according to a story that just went to the digg frontpage, the Gizmodo employee who did it has been banned from future CES events and they're still discussing actions against Gizmodo and Gawker media.
I say ban them. That was retarded. Companies pay tons of money for these shows trying to get them to go off without a hitch. Having displays randomly turning off is bad for them. It could cost them millions of dollars and could have even cost the people who set everything up their jobs.
Additionally, there's still a debate about whether bloggers are journalists... personally I'd say they are. But some idiots doing this just gives a bad name to bloggers everywhere.
I hope their whole company is banned from CES and other events so that they go out of business.
more...
Willis
Jan 5, 02:41 PM
Ah yes! Everytime I want to watch a Keynote, its usually spoiled by the fact the homepage on Apple.com is promoting the new products.... sort of ruins it really.
Arn... you're a true legend.
Arn... you're a true legend.
iluomo
Apr 30, 12:09 PM
I noticed most of the criticism stems from the changes in iCal and Address Book which are both disgusting. Sadly they havent changed yet
I positively loathe the look of the "new" iCal and Address Book. It looks like a design from the mid 90's. I cannot comprehend how a company who goes for a clean, smooth, modern aesthetic could produce a faux leather interface and think that meshes with that aesthetic. This is something I would expect from Palm or Microsoft. But Apple? I'm amazed by how off the mark this is. :confused:
I positively loathe the look of the "new" iCal and Address Book. It looks like a design from the mid 90's. I cannot comprehend how a company who goes for a clean, smooth, modern aesthetic could produce a faux leather interface and think that meshes with that aesthetic. This is something I would expect from Palm or Microsoft. But Apple? I'm amazed by how off the mark this is. :confused:
more...
Small White Car
Oct 17, 08:59 AM
I'm not sure about what you're saying here, because content producers will still be having to supply the same film in two different formats.
They'll likely drop the less popular format, and thus, we'll have a winner.
Posted in Bill Gates,
more...
the name Bill Gates
steve jobs and ill gates
valentines quotes for friends.
They'll likely drop the less popular format, and thus, we'll have a winner.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
more...
Hephaestus
Mar 18, 07:09 PM
Lol, serious? Sorry bro, sounds pretty much the same to me. You're still assuming that because someone compares features with you, or comments on your phone, that they are jealous of you because of your phone.
Thats the point though! If it was just comparing features or commenting then that would be fine, it just flat out rudeness and is totally unprovoked. I was just minding my own damn business and then some of these people come out with this nonsense.
Comments like, "oh you so you have an iPhone, my XYZ is better because of this", "you paid �500 for a phone you need a case to use", "you're in a closed platform that is inferior in every way", "you paid more money for a shiny apple logo". Its comments like these that are totally unprovoked which irk me.
By no means am I saying that someone can't have their own opinion, but theres no need to be rude about it. The person that posted below you pretty much summed it up.
Thats the point though! If it was just comparing features or commenting then that would be fine, it just flat out rudeness and is totally unprovoked. I was just minding my own damn business and then some of these people come out with this nonsense.
Comments like, "oh you so you have an iPhone, my XYZ is better because of this", "you paid �500 for a phone you need a case to use", "you're in a closed platform that is inferior in every way", "you paid more money for a shiny apple logo". Its comments like these that are totally unprovoked which irk me.
By no means am I saying that someone can't have their own opinion, but theres no need to be rude about it. The person that posted below you pretty much summed it up.
mw360
Apr 6, 08:03 AM
Agreed. Sadly, I was working on an App nearly IDENTICAL to what Apple just came out with. I am about 80% done but am wondering if it is even worth completing: http://computerharmonyinc.com/ibillboard.html
Been tried, been rejected.
Nice try though. An app where you make money every time someone taps the screen - you must have been wetting yourself with excitement.
Been tried, been rejected.
Nice try though. An app where you make money every time someone taps the screen - you must have been wetting yourself with excitement.
krestfallen
Oct 17, 10:55 AM
Whereas discs last forever, right? ;)
no but the risk is marginal that a disk dies in 10 years.
of course you shouldn't play frisbee with them ;)
no but the risk is marginal that a disk dies in 10 years.
of course you shouldn't play frisbee with them ;)
Cerda
Apr 15, 12:26 PM
its very Ugly
jmthigpen
May 3, 09:27 PM
just getting started...iPad 3!
Arcus
May 2, 09:35 AM
no thanks.
y u no like bugfixes?
y u no like bugfixes?
uburoibob
Jan 13, 07:27 PM
I gotta say, Gizmodo sucks big time cuz of this. Once in my CoolSites bookmark folder, they are now off my radar. Goodbye Gizmodo...:mad:
teme
Oct 4, 04:29 AM
hi,
The people I have spoken to who use PC's are not nerds or power users, however, they do have monitors that work perfectly fine and want to use them. Why would someone purchase a 20" iMac when they already have sitting on their desk a 12 month old 19" LCD? They may not all need expandability (or really understand what that means) but they are of the mind set that they must have the option. These people are simply not considering Apple computers because of the lack of an upgradeable computer that is under $1500 (the mini is not easily upgradeable unless you happen to be one of those nerds you are refering to). The gap between the mini and the Mac Pro is enormous in both power and price yet there is nothing in the middle price/power range. Simply dismissing this catagory of people will not convince them to buy an iMac. Further, saying the operating system will convince them to switch is a moot point if they never buy the computer in the first place.
My friends, family, and co-workers are all interested in this "OS X thing" but get turned off at the price of the Pro, the lack of power of the mini, and the all in one of the iMac. This is what I am seeing, and Apple is losing sales because of it.
s.
You said the exact reasons why I bought a new PC tower and not a Mac, although I wanted to get a Mac.
The people I have spoken to who use PC's are not nerds or power users, however, they do have monitors that work perfectly fine and want to use them. Why would someone purchase a 20" iMac when they already have sitting on their desk a 12 month old 19" LCD? They may not all need expandability (or really understand what that means) but they are of the mind set that they must have the option. These people are simply not considering Apple computers because of the lack of an upgradeable computer that is under $1500 (the mini is not easily upgradeable unless you happen to be one of those nerds you are refering to). The gap between the mini and the Mac Pro is enormous in both power and price yet there is nothing in the middle price/power range. Simply dismissing this catagory of people will not convince them to buy an iMac. Further, saying the operating system will convince them to switch is a moot point if they never buy the computer in the first place.
My friends, family, and co-workers are all interested in this "OS X thing" but get turned off at the price of the Pro, the lack of power of the mini, and the all in one of the iMac. This is what I am seeing, and Apple is losing sales because of it.
s.
You said the exact reasons why I bought a new PC tower and not a Mac, although I wanted to get a Mac.
No comments:
Post a Comment