hexonxonx
May 6, 05:11 AM
AT&T's plan worked brilliantly.
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
I too rarely have dropped calls. It's gotten much better since September. I can talk anywhere in the house now without the call dropping.
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
I too rarely have dropped calls. It's gotten much better since September. I can talk anywhere in the house now without the call dropping.
Dr.Gargoyle
Jul 11, 10:42 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
Doctor Q
Mar 20, 06:21 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
vincenz
Mar 13, 12:35 PM
Best wishes to the Japanese people. Hope they can get over this tragedy soon.
Lara F
May 5, 01:53 PM
Funny bit of irony - I went to Lake Placid NY for a sports competition last fall where a main sponsor was AT&T - logo on the side of the boards, booth set up etc.
Tower went down second day and there was zero service for 24h. :o
Now that AT&T offers a Canada plan with no extra long-distance fees, I may actually start talking on my iPhone for more extensive periods of time. Should be interesting to compare with Verizon...so far my frustration in NYC has been more over unavailable/slow internet connection than dropped calls.
Tower went down second day and there was zero service for 24h. :o
Now that AT&T offers a Canada plan with no extra long-distance fees, I may actually start talking on my iPhone for more extensive periods of time. Should be interesting to compare with Verizon...so far my frustration in NYC has been more over unavailable/slow internet connection than dropped calls.
OllyW
Apr 28, 11:21 AM
Where are you getting 3.5% from? It's higher than that without counting iPad.
It's the Q1 2010 share from the chart in the first post.
It's the Q1 2010 share from the chart in the first post.
charliehustle
Nov 6, 04:41 PM
Maybe, but there is a good chance Verizon will screw it up.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
What are you talking about? You have any links to your belief that "verizon will screw it up"? or you just "believe"? kind of like the tooth fairy or santa?
lets' break it down.. (after all, this thread is about market share)
windows (90% market share of OS worldwide)
apple (10%)
Microsoft market cap, $250 Billion
Apple, $175 Billion
Microsoft Revenue:$56 billion
Apple Revenue:$36 billion
Microsoft Profit Margin:24%
Apple profit margin:15%
Microsoft total cash:$33 billion
apple total cash:$23 billion
I wish people would understand the difference between market share and "inferior product"
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
What are you talking about? You have any links to your belief that "verizon will screw it up"? or you just "believe"? kind of like the tooth fairy or santa?
lets' break it down.. (after all, this thread is about market share)
windows (90% market share of OS worldwide)
apple (10%)
Microsoft market cap, $250 Billion
Apple, $175 Billion
Microsoft Revenue:$56 billion
Apple Revenue:$36 billion
Microsoft Profit Margin:24%
Apple profit margin:15%
Microsoft total cash:$33 billion
apple total cash:$23 billion
I wish people would understand the difference between market share and "inferior product"
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
bigwig
Oct 27, 05:43 PM
That is simply false. The schedular in Mac OS X handles 8 cores just fine... what Applications do with them in a different story.
Scaling isn't really a product of your scheduler, it's a product of eliminating bottlenecks to multiple threads of execution. I'm glad that Apple is working on this. I didn't come up with this from whole cloth or animosity towards Apple, I saw several benchmarks showing how poorly OSX scaled, which I hope are now out of date.
I mentioned SGI several times here because I used to do kernel work for them, so I have a real good idea what it takes to scale performance on large (256-1024 CPU) systems. Btw, that's not a cluster, that's a single kernel being shared by all processors.
Scaling isn't really a product of your scheduler, it's a product of eliminating bottlenecks to multiple threads of execution. I'm glad that Apple is working on this. I didn't come up with this from whole cloth or animosity towards Apple, I saw several benchmarks showing how poorly OSX scaled, which I hope are now out of date.
I mentioned SGI several times here because I used to do kernel work for them, so I have a real good idea what it takes to scale performance on large (256-1024 CPU) systems. Btw, that's not a cluster, that's a single kernel being shared by all processors.
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 06:11 PM
PCUser:
Thanks! Didn't think about clock()!
Though, that gives me 100.8 seconds (assuming 10.08 seconds) when it ran in 10 seconds. Didn't you mean to divide by ten?
Thanks! Didn't think about clock()!
Though, that gives me 100.8 seconds (assuming 10.08 seconds) when it ran in 10 seconds. Didn't you mean to divide by ten?
jiggie2g
Mar 18, 03:23 PM
DVD Jon is unstoppable this guy could crack a Diamond.
mike31mets
Apr 22, 06:34 PM
I was in the same boat as the OP a few years back. My circumstances and motivations in learning OS X were a bit than the OP's. I've learned a good deal about OS X. The things it can and can't do and how it differs from Windows.
So some of the stuff in this thread I knew about, but the one that I still can't figure out is switching between all windows. Everyone says just use CMD + ~. However when I do that on my iMac, all I get is a switch between windows in a particular application. I'm using the Apple standard wired keyboard with numberpad.
In Windows, ATL + Tab switches between all windows (and it shows you the windows in a preview much like CMD + Tab does with applications).
So some of the stuff in this thread I knew about, but the one that I still can't figure out is switching between all windows. Everyone says just use CMD + ~. However when I do that on my iMac, all I get is a switch between windows in a particular application. I'm using the Apple standard wired keyboard with numberpad.
In Windows, ATL + Tab switches between all windows (and it shows you the windows in a preview much like CMD + Tab does with applications).
Ericatomars
Oct 7, 12:27 PM
yeah that they were also sure that chicago would get the olympics! It didnt happen...
Once android gets a grip on apple and its actually at the point where they could have that chance Apple will change the game! Thats just how it goes... There is a reason why so many people stand behind Apple's products....
Once android gets a grip on apple and its actually at the point where they could have that chance Apple will change the game! Thats just how it goes... There is a reason why so many people stand behind Apple's products....
GGJstudios
May 4, 10:33 AM
Did you read about this solution on Apple web site? Not everybody reads MacRumors.
If you Google "Mac Defender" you'll run across any number of sites that will tell you the same thing: Don't install it and remove it from your system. You don't need to be a MR forums reader to find that out. After all, the information about the threat didn't originate from this site, and neither did the solution.
If you Google "Mac Defender" you'll run across any number of sites that will tell you the same thing: Don't install it and remove it from your system. You don't need to be a MR forums reader to find that out. After all, the information about the threat didn't originate from this site, and neither did the solution.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 03:55 PM
Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?
This shouldnt be about finger pointing.
The issues are real and we are in a dire need for a solution...fast.
One thing is sure though, the difference in enviromental cost between the "greenest" computer and the worst computer is insignificant in the big picture. There are much more urgent enviromental issues that we need to handle.
Knowing how many well-educated people there are in enviromental movement, Greenpeace's statement sounds, to me, more like a cry for additional funding than a cry to save the planet.
This shouldnt be about finger pointing.
The issues are real and we are in a dire need for a solution...fast.
One thing is sure though, the difference in enviromental cost between the "greenest" computer and the worst computer is insignificant in the big picture. There are much more urgent enviromental issues that we need to handle.
Knowing how many well-educated people there are in enviromental movement, Greenpeace's statement sounds, to me, more like a cry for additional funding than a cry to save the planet.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:45 PM
What!! HAHA, do you know your TV is downrezzing to 720? So, how does 1080i look better than 720? You can see the difference between downrezzed to 720p-1080i and 720p, but you can't see a difference between HD and a 480p DVD?!!
Either you need a new HD set, or a new HD provider. There is simply no comparison, really. HD is night and day, leaps and bounds better than DVD.
Apple's iTV would NEVER do HD, it simply is a chain between your HD tv and your mac that DOES do HD. Your computer is the player, so yes, I'd suspect I could record HD off my g5, and stream it to my HD set.
Can't wait!!!
My TV is actually 1080i native... upconverting 720p, not the other way around...
Either you need a new HD set, or a new HD provider. There is simply no comparison, really. HD is night and day, leaps and bounds better than DVD.
Apple's iTV would NEVER do HD, it simply is a chain between your HD tv and your mac that DOES do HD. Your computer is the player, so yes, I'd suspect I could record HD off my g5, and stream it to my HD set.
Can't wait!!!
My TV is actually 1080i native... upconverting 720p, not the other way around...
iliketyla
Apr 20, 06:37 PM
Except for the inferior interface, battery life, apps and usability you mean.. Otherwise they are exactly the same!
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:27 PM
If it did support HD??
thats kinda stupid considering it has HDMI and component connectors.
Well I had an old Toshiba TV with component in and it sure as hell wasn't an HDTV set... So component and HDTV are NOT interdependant...
The HDMI on the other hand is a good point, but it can still be used for SDTV so it's no a proof in itself (although I'll admit, it's certainly possible). My guess is that it's more an insurance policy for the future if Apple needs to protect the content from being "ripped"...
thats kinda stupid considering it has HDMI and component connectors.
Well I had an old Toshiba TV with component in and it sure as hell wasn't an HDTV set... So component and HDTV are NOT interdependant...
The HDMI on the other hand is a good point, but it can still be used for SDTV so it's no a proof in itself (although I'll admit, it's certainly possible). My guess is that it's more an insurance policy for the future if Apple needs to protect the content from being "ripped"...
diamond.g
Apr 21, 08:46 AM
That's exactly the reason for the Walled Garden: superior User Experience. The "walled garden" is the reason Apple is so successful today. A controlled, tight, cohesive ecosystem based on a vertical business model - if done right - will *always* be superior to anything else out there. The proof is all laid out before you every day in the tech news feeds.
If Apple had done anything else, it would just be more undifferentiated crap, barely distinguishable from the rest of the flotsam and jetsam out there.
A few people out there just can't stand it that a closed, controlled platform is so damned successful and actually represents the ideal.
Which is ironic considering Steve Jobs lamented the carriers walled garden. I love my iPhone, but I also understand that I traded AT&Ts walled garden for Apples.
If Apple had done anything else, it would just be more undifferentiated crap, barely distinguishable from the rest of the flotsam and jetsam out there.
A few people out there just can't stand it that a closed, controlled platform is so damned successful and actually represents the ideal.
Which is ironic considering Steve Jobs lamented the carriers walled garden. I love my iPhone, but I also understand that I traded AT&Ts walled garden for Apples.
..jpg "semana santa malaga.")
theBB
Sep 12, 07:34 PM
Where? The pics I saw looked like power, Ethernet, HDMI and 5 RCA jacks for component out?
Between ethernet and power.
Between ethernet and power.
drsmithy
Sep 26, 12:23 AM
So say I�m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary �re-wire� applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
You can typically bind processes to specific cores. Some OSes have a concept of processor "pools" where you can group, say, 3 CPUs together and assign a certain group of processes to them, another 2 CPUs get a different set of processes, etc.
Most of the time though (outside of benchmarks and corner cases) you're generally better off letting the OS's scheduler shuffle tasks around CPUs as it sees fit.
OS X still has a ways to go with its multiprocessor support, however, so it might not do it as well as other platforms do yet.
You can typically bind processes to specific cores. Some OSes have a concept of processor "pools" where you can group, say, 3 CPUs together and assign a certain group of processes to them, another 2 CPUs get a different set of processes, etc.
Most of the time though (outside of benchmarks and corner cases) you're generally better off letting the OS's scheduler shuffle tasks around CPUs as it sees fit.
OS X still has a ways to go with its multiprocessor support, however, so it might not do it as well as other platforms do yet.
macmax
Oct 9, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
my pc with xp pro ed did crash a few times and it does.
on the other hand , my macs with os x do not
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
my pc with xp pro ed did crash a few times and it does.
on the other hand , my macs with os x do not
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
kas23
Apr 28, 08:00 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
You apparently missed the part of the report that says:
A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers.
Interpretation in english:
Two major factors contributing to the sequential decline of iPad sales this quarter:
1) A lot of consumers received an iPad 1 as a holiday gift and did not need a 2 and
2) Apple's larger multi-country launch caused inventory constraint and Apple was unable to sell more because they didn't have any excess to sell; i.e., it's a really popular device and we anticipate that being reflected in next quarter's sales report.
That is true, but I would argue that Apple likely sold more iPad 2s through the end of march than during the whole month of April.
As for too many people buying iPad 1 for Christmas, thus denting iPad 2 sales, well, all previous iPad 1 sales are included in these numbers, are they not? Therefore, even will that binge of iPad 1 purchases during Christmas, these numbers are still surprisingly unimpressive.
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
You apparently missed the part of the report that says:
A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers.
Interpretation in english:
Two major factors contributing to the sequential decline of iPad sales this quarter:
1) A lot of consumers received an iPad 1 as a holiday gift and did not need a 2 and
2) Apple's larger multi-country launch caused inventory constraint and Apple was unable to sell more because they didn't have any excess to sell; i.e., it's a really popular device and we anticipate that being reflected in next quarter's sales report.
That is true, but I would argue that Apple likely sold more iPad 2s through the end of march than during the whole month of April.
As for too many people buying iPad 1 for Christmas, thus denting iPad 2 sales, well, all previous iPad 1 sales are included in these numbers, are they not? Therefore, even will that binge of iPad 1 purchases during Christmas, these numbers are still surprisingly unimpressive.
Eraserhead
Mar 28, 02:11 AM
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
