Nuvi
Apr 12, 05:50 AM
http://www.avid.com/US/specialoffers/fcppromotion?intcmp=AV-HP-S3
Avid is holding a great promotion to switch over to Media Composer if you are an FCP user. I am considering it based on what Apple shows us today.
It's good to remember that Avid is offering the production suit version for FCP users so you'll be getting some additional software like Sorenson Squeeze, Boris Continuum Complete etc. If I remember correctly Boris Continuum Complete is around $1500, Sorenson Squeeze is $800. That's nice when you think that under a $1000 you get Avid MC 5.5 and all the rest of the apps and you're still left with your original FCP license.
Avid is holding a great promotion to switch over to Media Composer if you are an FCP user. I am considering it based on what Apple shows us today.
It's good to remember that Avid is offering the production suit version for FCP users so you'll be getting some additional software like Sorenson Squeeze, Boris Continuum Complete etc. If I remember correctly Boris Continuum Complete is around $1500, Sorenson Squeeze is $800. That's nice when you think that under a $1000 you get Avid MC 5.5 and all the rest of the apps and you're still left with your original FCP license.
swingerofbirch
Aug 7, 04:25 PM
Good lord. Whatever happened to simplicity? It looked like a three ring circus up there today.
Now come on. Time machine? With a picture of outer space and stars? This looks so gimmicky. They are getting to be like Microsoft and just adding new features instead of making things easier and streamlined. Why not just improve the Backup program that comes with .Mac or include it for free? Do we really need another interface? To me it looks like form over function.
Now come on. Time machine? With a picture of outer space and stars? This looks so gimmicky. They are getting to be like Microsoft and just adding new features instead of making things easier and streamlined. Why not just improve the Backup program that comes with .Mac or include it for free? Do we really need another interface? To me it looks like form over function.
11thIndian
Apr 5, 10:17 PM
I doubt Apple will ship a new version of FCP before they ship lion, there are simply no real video editor APIs in Snow Leopard that are capable of 64 bit, QT Kit is a joke.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
Rumor is that new FCP will be based on A/V Foundation, leaving the legacy QT Kit limitations behind, and negating the need to wait for Lion for 64bit.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
Rumor is that new FCP will be based on A/V Foundation, leaving the legacy QT Kit limitations behind, and negating the need to wait for Lion for 64bit.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
hulugu
Mar 22, 04:13 PM
No he did not. It was a mistake then, it is a mistake now. The only difference is, I oppose it in all circumstances, regardless of who's president. You only oppose it when it's a Republican in office....
Right, because there can't be any other reason why Blue Velvet, or myself, might support military intervention in Libya, but not Iraq. They are exactly the same situation after all.
And, there's absolute silence from the New York Times on Libya. Well, silence in the sense that you're obviously not actually reading the New York Times.
There are nine articles in today's issue, including an op-ed, four centerpiece articles, and an article about the four captured New York Times reporters.
Headlines:
Six Flags Great Adventure
BACK TO GREAT ADVENTURE
Six Flags said it actually had
.jpg "Six Flags Great Adventure.")
Six Flags Great Adventure.
Six Flags Great Adventure
six flags great adventure
Six Flags Great Adventure
Six Flags Great Adventure
six flags great adventure
A roller coaster train
Six Flags Great Adventure
Floorless roller coaster
six flags great adventure
able to see the coaster as
Six Flags Great Adventure.
Right, because there can't be any other reason why Blue Velvet, or myself, might support military intervention in Libya, but not Iraq. They are exactly the same situation after all.
And, there's absolute silence from the New York Times on Libya. Well, silence in the sense that you're obviously not actually reading the New York Times.
There are nine articles in today's issue, including an op-ed, four centerpiece articles, and an article about the four captured New York Times reporters.
Headlines:
LethalWolfe
Apr 5, 08:07 PM
As someone who's attended NAB yearly, (and again this year) Apple has not had a presence there since and currently are NOT on the exhibitor list for this years convention. Will take pics if I'm wrong though.
The Supermeet is a meet-up of Final Cut Pro User Groups from across the country that coincides with NAB. It is not a part of NAB itself.
Lethal
The Supermeet is a meet-up of Final Cut Pro User Groups from across the country that coincides with NAB. It is not a part of NAB itself.
Lethal
hcho3
Apr 19, 08:15 PM
Samsung is the worst company with ideas. They just copied off apple on everything they make, period.
Yes, their Nexus S phones have almost as same packaging as iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4 packaging.
Yes, their icons are so similar.
Yes, their UI is very identical to Apple's iOS.
Their new Samsung 9 series laptop has drop ports and original macbook air had this as well.
Samsung just copies apple. Good to see apple is suing them. Love competitions, but apple spent money on investing, marketing and entering the market with the new design. Samsung? No. They just copied.
They deserve to lose and they will lose in this trial.
Yes, their Nexus S phones have almost as same packaging as iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4 packaging.
Yes, their icons are so similar.
Yes, their UI is very identical to Apple's iOS.
Their new Samsung 9 series laptop has drop ports and original macbook air had this as well.
Samsung just copies apple. Good to see apple is suing them. Love competitions, but apple spent money on investing, marketing and entering the market with the new design. Samsung? No. They just copied.
They deserve to lose and they will lose in this trial.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 11, 06:05 AM
I think the point is apple is trying to break the mold of traditional NLE editing. Many tools and terms we use in FCP and other NLEs are derived from linear tape editing from 20+ years ago. They are trying to push to the future of editing in a new direction and that may involve rethinking aspects of how we edit. Whether it's going to work or not I guess we'll have to see...
Thank you.
The funny thing is that most of the ranters here calling themselves "professionals" are really just hacks using professional grade equipment. They comfort themselves in the fact they use the same s/w (FCP) as many in the H'wood TV and movie studios (home of the true professionals), much like a kid with an Albert Pujois edition L'ville Slugger.
I admit when iMovie '08 came out my head imploded. The entire concept seemed so ass-backwards after years with NLEs. I still don't like the "new" iMovie because its features pale in comparison of previous versions, which limits creativity. iMovie '09 and '11 have improved but are still too basic.
I have warmed up to the editing concept. I actually like it now for a quick splice job. So if it turns out iMovie has really been the beta engine for the new FCP all along I'm OK with that. It's really a snappier, more organized way to edit once you divorce all previous notions of NLE editing. Of course I don't pretend to be a professional either.
Thank you.
The funny thing is that most of the ranters here calling themselves "professionals" are really just hacks using professional grade equipment. They comfort themselves in the fact they use the same s/w (FCP) as many in the H'wood TV and movie studios (home of the true professionals), much like a kid with an Albert Pujois edition L'ville Slugger.
I admit when iMovie '08 came out my head imploded. The entire concept seemed so ass-backwards after years with NLEs. I still don't like the "new" iMovie because its features pale in comparison of previous versions, which limits creativity. iMovie '09 and '11 have improved but are still too basic.
I have warmed up to the editing concept. I actually like it now for a quick splice job. So if it turns out iMovie has really been the beta engine for the new FCP all along I'm OK with that. It's really a snappier, more organized way to edit once you divorce all previous notions of NLE editing. Of course I don't pretend to be a professional either.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
bigandy
Aug 5, 04:41 PM
cmon, ipod.....
WWDC = World Wide Developer Conference.
= Not Consumer Stuff.
It's been mentioned before... :rolleyes:
WWDC = World Wide Developer Conference.
= Not Consumer Stuff.
It's been mentioned before... :rolleyes:
QCassidy352
Jul 20, 03:53 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
balamw
Aug 7, 04:24 PM
If Apple had had that feature for years and MS would include it into Vista now, you'd call it copying, no !? ;)
If you were picking on Mail.app's Stationery I'd probably agree with you.
None of the things that Time Machine have been compared to seem even close to what they are planning to do. Including my own VMS file versioning analogies. System Restore is not capable of restoring a single file, and particularly not within a running application. It seems kind of more like a system wide undo function when it comes to files...
B
If you were picking on Mail.app's Stationery I'd probably agree with you.
None of the things that Time Machine have been compared to seem even close to what they are planning to do. Including my own VMS file versioning analogies. System Restore is not capable of restoring a single file, and particularly not within a running application. It seems kind of more like a system wide undo function when it comes to files...
B
samcraig
Apr 27, 09:55 AM
And once again the Apple fans will turn out to have been correct.
Really? The posters on here that say there was no issue are correct?
I guess Apple fixing certain bugs related to this is whimtime.
I guess it's all a matter of what part of the issue you deem important. The tracking, the retention or the ability to opt out
Really? The posters on here that say there was no issue are correct?
I guess Apple fixing certain bugs related to this is whimtime.
I guess it's all a matter of what part of the issue you deem important. The tracking, the retention or the ability to opt out
smiddlehurst
Mar 31, 03:15 PM
Emphasis on the important bit for those who didn't bother to actually read the article. If you want to wait a bit, you can get the code and do whatever you want. Well that's my reading of it anyway, but please, don't let get in the way of giving the new enemy number one a good kicking.
Except Google have made it very clear with Honeycomb that they're not willing to release the source code for the foreseeable future so 'a bit' could be a lot longer than you'd think. More to the point that does manufacturers very little good. If, f'instance, Google decide to only release a version of Android as open source when they release the next version any manufacturer wanting to use it is going to have to grab the open version, make whatever tweaks they want, get it on a device, get it built in bulk and launch it into the relevant sales channel(s). By the time they do that Google is likely to have released another version of Android and they'll be hopelessly out of date.
Make no mistake about this, Google tightening up on the Android T&C's like this makes it almost impossible for anyone outside of Google's control to launch a device that really competes with the manufacturers who are on the inside track, at least from an OS point of view.
Except Google have made it very clear with Honeycomb that they're not willing to release the source code for the foreseeable future so 'a bit' could be a lot longer than you'd think. More to the point that does manufacturers very little good. If, f'instance, Google decide to only release a version of Android as open source when they release the next version any manufacturer wanting to use it is going to have to grab the open version, make whatever tweaks they want, get it on a device, get it built in bulk and launch it into the relevant sales channel(s). By the time they do that Google is likely to have released another version of Android and they'll be hopelessly out of date.
Make no mistake about this, Google tightening up on the Android T&C's like this makes it almost impossible for anyone outside of Google's control to launch a device that really competes with the manufacturers who are on the inside track, at least from an OS point of view.
ergle2
Sep 13, 03:02 PM
You totally missed my point. Even if an application uses only one thread at all times, that application is still a separate process from all of the other processes you have running. At any given time you'll have at least 30 something processes, even when no user-land applications are running. OS X will spread out those processes to try to utilize all the cores as much as possible.
In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.
Sure, but all those background processes take next to no time to execute -- the extra latency of having more processors will probably slow things down far more than you gain from having up to 8 of those 30 be able to run at any one time.
I'm not saying there's no need for 8 cores -- markets such as databases, media production, rendering, etc. can already make use of that kind of power.
Regular desktops, not so much.
Many simple apps are already mutithreadedto some dgree, but it's to make them non-blocking rather than to spread processor load. If you look at Windows, you'll find a very high number of threads in even just a media player, but some of it's just there to repaint the GUI etc.
In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.
Sure, but all those background processes take next to no time to execute -- the extra latency of having more processors will probably slow things down far more than you gain from having up to 8 of those 30 be able to run at any one time.
I'm not saying there's no need for 8 cores -- markets such as databases, media production, rendering, etc. can already make use of that kind of power.
Regular desktops, not so much.
Many simple apps are already mutithreadedto some dgree, but it's to make them non-blocking rather than to spread processor load. If you look at Windows, you'll find a very high number of threads in even just a media player, but some of it's just there to repaint the GUI etc.
DoFoT9
Aug 14, 11:44 PM
I have enough skill to win the faster races, i just have more fun with a "real" car instead of something with neck-snapping acceleration and tires that stick to the road if you take a hair-pin at 200mph.
I have a lot more fun driving cars that anyone can afford.
are you rich then? :p
i only hope that GT5 is more realistic then simulated this time..
I have a lot more fun driving cars that anyone can afford.
are you rich then? :p
i only hope that GT5 is more realistic then simulated this time..
blackcrayon
Mar 22, 05:02 PM
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
...
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I like products, not brands.
Question: does anyone know if the A5 design could've fit 1 GB of RAM, or if anyone else is packaging more than 512 MB of RAM inside of their SoC? Just wondering, it may actually be a limitation of the A5's design(or at least one with a huge cost increase to overcome), but the other side is faster, lower latency memory. I don't know if Samsung will be using a similar design, but I don't think the Tegra 2 tablets have their memory "sandwiched" on top of the CPU cores, so to speak. Or maybe it makes no difference in the real world, guess I need an engineer to explain :)
...
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I like products, not brands.
Question: does anyone know if the A5 design could've fit 1 GB of RAM, or if anyone else is packaging more than 512 MB of RAM inside of their SoC? Just wondering, it may actually be a limitation of the A5's design(or at least one with a huge cost increase to overcome), but the other side is faster, lower latency memory. I don't know if Samsung will be using a similar design, but I don't think the Tegra 2 tablets have their memory "sandwiched" on top of the CPU cores, so to speak. Or maybe it makes no difference in the real world, guess I need an engineer to explain :)
tkingart
Mar 27, 03:54 AM
The only thing I don't like in Lion (based on screenshots I've seen) are the "flat gray scroll bars" adopted from iOS, this going back to 2d seems like back pedaling. I think something between flat and 3d would actually work, like get rid of the rounded center, flatten it but keep the edges soft and shaded, keeping the scroll bar wells the same. I suspect it's being flattened because of possible support for touch screens.
I understand the need for simplicity and streamlining, but where we lack tactile feedback, 3d helps with the illusion of depth, take that away and it will look like a devolving interface. Look at the OS X dock for instance, I was elated when it became three dimensional, now imagine if they made it flat again (permanently). I'm sure it may be a preferential thing, but I don't think I'm alone in preferring the 3d dock view.
We need to keep pushing forward with three dimensions in UI designs. It would be really cool to see some forward thinking UI changes like the ability to "push" running applications into the inside quad of a cylindrical shape that can be rotated with gestures.
The flat scroll bar belongs in Folder > Grid views and preview, looks alright there. :)
I understand the need for simplicity and streamlining, but where we lack tactile feedback, 3d helps with the illusion of depth, take that away and it will look like a devolving interface. Look at the OS X dock for instance, I was elated when it became three dimensional, now imagine if they made it flat again (permanently). I'm sure it may be a preferential thing, but I don't think I'm alone in preferring the 3d dock view.
We need to keep pushing forward with three dimensions in UI designs. It would be really cool to see some forward thinking UI changes like the ability to "push" running applications into the inside quad of a cylindrical shape that can be rotated with gestures.
The flat scroll bar belongs in Folder > Grid views and preview, looks alright there. :)
Joshuarocks
Apr 7, 11:30 PM
Best Buy is now WORST BUY!!!!
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 04:08 PM
That may be, but I highly doubt every infant, elderly folks, and the poverty stricken all have cell phones. If that's the case, then I'd have to say that there are a lot of people who's financial priorities are kinda messed.
What sjo wrote seem quite accurate. Cells are extremly common here. It has become so common that cellphones nowdays are almost considered as a anti-status symbol. Poor people cant "afford" a land line.
Many like me, have multiple contracts. Our old contracts, used to be roll-over type. Hence, a lot of people have many minutes left on their old contracts. They pay a small fee to keep the old contract alive and then use these minutes when they travel in abroad (expensive to call). Then they have a new contract that allows you to talk very cheap within a/some countries. These minutes are not roll-over type.
As you can see, we have a big mess too when it comes to contracts. I wish I could keep one phone and one number, but right now that is financially insane.
What sjo wrote seem quite accurate. Cells are extremly common here. It has become so common that cellphones nowdays are almost considered as a anti-status symbol. Poor people cant "afford" a land line.
Many like me, have multiple contracts. Our old contracts, used to be roll-over type. Hence, a lot of people have many minutes left on their old contracts. They pay a small fee to keep the old contract alive and then use these minutes when they travel in abroad (expensive to call). Then they have a new contract that allows you to talk very cheap within a/some countries. These minutes are not roll-over type.
As you can see, we have a big mess too when it comes to contracts. I wish I could keep one phone and one number, but right now that is financially insane.
Tones2
Apr 11, 02:08 PM
LOL at all of the people saying it's a big mistake and bad move on Apple's part. They know what they are doing. Why would they do something that would hurt their iPhone sales?!
No. I think people are just saying it's a stupid rumor.
Tony
No. I think people are just saying it's a stupid rumor.
Tony
ergle2
Sep 20, 01:50 PM
No, one that just ignores you and your inquiries because it was already clear where you were coming from..thus I feel no obligation to engage you in my thought process and your self important questioning. Has nothing to do with my maturity, and everything to do with my lack of caring about you or your opinion.
Ah, a response that is pompous, imperious, petulant, inconsistent AND incorrect -- you didn't ignore me, after all, you were simply obnoxious and evasive with a serious of ridiculous replies.
Nice projection with the "self-important", though.
Where I was coming from was purely from a sense of curiosity as to why someone would apparently feel that technology can advance too quickly. It's not unobvious, I grant you, but a rather unobjectionable query to my mind.
Interestingly, it would appear you do care enough about my opinion - or perhaps that of other forum denizens? - to respond in a way you apparently consider to be "clever". Feel free to ignore me -- really, I can take it! I mean, I'm sure I'll probably suffer a couple of seconds of heartbreak sometime around, say, 2020, but I'll survive.
Oh and "thought process" - ROTFL - lovely!
Ah, a response that is pompous, imperious, petulant, inconsistent AND incorrect -- you didn't ignore me, after all, you were simply obnoxious and evasive with a serious of ridiculous replies.
Nice projection with the "self-important", though.
Where I was coming from was purely from a sense of curiosity as to why someone would apparently feel that technology can advance too quickly. It's not unobvious, I grant you, but a rather unobjectionable query to my mind.
Interestingly, it would appear you do care enough about my opinion - or perhaps that of other forum denizens? - to respond in a way you apparently consider to be "clever". Feel free to ignore me -- really, I can take it! I mean, I'm sure I'll probably suffer a couple of seconds of heartbreak sometime around, say, 2020, but I'll survive.
Oh and "thought process" - ROTFL - lovely!
daze
Aug 25, 03:52 PM
Call it what you want but these new MacBooks are crap. Yea there is people who are enjoying theirs without a hitch but look at all the reports of problems. Not once on this forum have we had a flood of problems with a single unit. Apple dropped the ball on this one. Poorly made unit
Not to put momre fuel on to the fire, but I agree. MacBooks are indeed crap. I had three sent to me, and all had a few things wrong with them. I ended up getting a refund... Now, if Apple could only re-do a new case for the MacBook Pro series, I'd get one in a heart beat.
Not to put momre fuel on to the fire, but I agree. MacBooks are indeed crap. I had three sent to me, and all had a few things wrong with them. I ended up getting a refund... Now, if Apple could only re-do a new case for the MacBook Pro series, I'd get one in a heart beat.
caspersoong
Apr 13, 04:53 AM
The longer the wait, the less likely for my family to buy it.
Eidorian
Jul 30, 08:55 PM
I'd like to be able to install OS X on it, because the only reason why I'd ever use Windows is for the latest games. Here are the spec's, think this would run OS X nicely? ;-)This is a joke...right?
