twoodcc
Aug 12, 09:04 PM
I don't really care if you count the Prologues as full releases or not. The fact remains...
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
nick123222
Mar 27, 03:59 AM
I use Spotlight, but Launchpad is terribly inefficient compared to stacks. You have to click on its icon to invoke it, hunt through potentially a bunch of different screens, click on a folder if you've organized your apps, and then click on your app. With stacks, I move my cursor down to the dock, click on the appropriate stack, and then click on my app. 2 clicks vs a button press, a bunch of swipes, hunting, and 2 more clicks.
Yes but, with stacks, I often have to do a lot of scrolling to find the app in my applications folder because I haven't spent the time to organise it all into folders. With launchpad, I would have every app in a folder (probably) so I would probably have only 1-3 pages. For me the number of clicks will be the same for the apps that I store in folders already, just with less scrolling:
Stacks: click the stack, scroll to the folder, click the folder, click the app.
Launchpad: click launchpad, swipe to the correct page (if necessary), click the folder, click the app.
I think it will be easier to find apps in launchpad because of the easy use of folders and the fact that it is fullscreen.
Yes but, with stacks, I often have to do a lot of scrolling to find the app in my applications folder because I haven't spent the time to organise it all into folders. With launchpad, I would have every app in a folder (probably) so I would probably have only 1-3 pages. For me the number of clicks will be the same for the apps that I store in folders already, just with less scrolling:
Stacks: click the stack, scroll to the folder, click the folder, click the app.
Launchpad: click launchpad, swipe to the correct page (if necessary), click the folder, click the app.
I think it will be easier to find apps in launchpad because of the easy use of folders and the fact that it is fullscreen.
Riemann Zeta
Mar 25, 10:42 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
********. If Apple is really done with Lion, then they should only be charging $29 for it (if that), like 10.6. More confusing scrollbars, tiny window controls and a better graphics/OGL support stack...add in the touch-screen readiness and you might have a quick $29 update.
I suppose, following the iOS model, Apple will likely stop charging anything for Mac OS; the OS features will revolve around new hardware features and/or gimmicks.
********. If Apple is really done with Lion, then they should only be charging $29 for it (if that), like 10.6. More confusing scrollbars, tiny window controls and a better graphics/OGL support stack...add in the touch-screen readiness and you might have a quick $29 update.
I suppose, following the iOS model, Apple will likely stop charging anything for Mac OS; the OS features will revolve around new hardware features and/or gimmicks.
wesk702
Jun 9, 09:48 AM
I just wanna preorder already
alphaod
Dec 4, 05:08 PM
I've been doing B-spec the whole time. Just set a race up and then go do other stuff. Come back it's done; repeat. :p
G4DP
Mar 26, 01:35 AM
So what we saw in the pre-view was basically it?
I hope not. because they'll have a hard time to justify the �100 upgrade charge if it is.
I hope not. because they'll have a hard time to justify the �100 upgrade charge if it is.
eoblaed
Apr 25, 02:41 PM
�We take issue specifically with the notion that Apple is now basically tracking people everywhere they go,� Aaron Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said today in a telephone interview. �If you are a federal marshal you have to have a warrant to do this kind of thing, and Apple is doing it without one.
Hyperbole and ignorance all in one fell swoop.
Apple isn't tracking people. Your device is storing data. The same way it stores all your contact information, your text conversations, your photographs, and your web history -- yet no one is claiming that Apple is tracking your text conversations or contact information.
It angers me when people like this Mayer guy not only take advantage of people's lack of understanding about what's going on, but exploit it for sensationalistic gain. I'd love to poke him in the eye.
Hyperbole and ignorance all in one fell swoop.
Apple isn't tracking people. Your device is storing data. The same way it stores all your contact information, your text conversations, your photographs, and your web history -- yet no one is claiming that Apple is tracking your text conversations or contact information.
It angers me when people like this Mayer guy not only take advantage of people's lack of understanding about what's going on, but exploit it for sensationalistic gain. I'd love to poke him in the eye.
Reach9
Apr 11, 04:11 PM
Perhaps solely in the phone part of the equation. Here's the newsflash: the "smart" part of "smartphone" encompasses much more than a voice-driven contact list and actual phone calls.
The iOS ecosystem completely destroys Android, no matter how many widgets you're able to install.
You're right, but here's where i think is the difference. Browsing the Internet, Calendar, Checking Mail, Listening to songs, Texting, Multitasking, Notifications, Cut-Copy-Paste, ability to open and use Office files, Navigation system, basic tools like Currency converters, To-Do lists etc. These are what i believe encompasses in a "smartphone", and here's the newsflash: Android OS meets them perfectly.
I'm not talking about widgets, customization, dynamic wallapers etc
The iPhone was late on MMS, Multitasking, Cut-Copy-Paste, and now it's going to be a notification system. Plus, browsing the internet, checking mail and practically everything is much better on a bigger screen.
I feel the App Store is just an added feature, and that's why i'd get an iPod Touch for.
Imagine your iPhone without the App store and all the apps you downloaded from it. Now imagine the HTC EVO without the Android app store. Which is the better smartphone? It's pretty obvious if you ask me.
Android OS already has the "smartphone" features down, and they're just working on the bonus features such as the Android App Store.
iOS on the other hand is catching up to these "smartphone" features. My old Nokia E63 had a better notification system than the iPhone, and that's pathetic.
The iOS ecosystem completely destroys Android, no matter how many widgets you're able to install.
You're right, but here's where i think is the difference. Browsing the Internet, Calendar, Checking Mail, Listening to songs, Texting, Multitasking, Notifications, Cut-Copy-Paste, ability to open and use Office files, Navigation system, basic tools like Currency converters, To-Do lists etc. These are what i believe encompasses in a "smartphone", and here's the newsflash: Android OS meets them perfectly.
I'm not talking about widgets, customization, dynamic wallapers etc
The iPhone was late on MMS, Multitasking, Cut-Copy-Paste, and now it's going to be a notification system. Plus, browsing the internet, checking mail and practically everything is much better on a bigger screen.
I feel the App Store is just an added feature, and that's why i'd get an iPod Touch for.
Imagine your iPhone without the App store and all the apps you downloaded from it. Now imagine the HTC EVO without the Android app store. Which is the better smartphone? It's pretty obvious if you ask me.
Android OS already has the "smartphone" features down, and they're just working on the bonus features such as the Android App Store.
iOS on the other hand is catching up to these "smartphone" features. My old Nokia E63 had a better notification system than the iPhone, and that's pathetic.
BBC B 32k
Jul 27, 10:13 AM
I am just waiting to pull the trigger and get myself a 20"er. Hurry up with those chips Mr Jobs. Ah and where has the wireless mouse/kbd option gone in the store? Maybe they will be free with the upgraded iMacs. :p
What a world away from the G5 iMacs these beasts will be. Still when (not if) they are out I will prob. start waiting for the chinless 23" wonder - my ideal requirement.
Must hold out...
What a world away from the G5 iMacs these beasts will be. Still when (not if) they are out I will prob. start waiting for the chinless 23" wonder - my ideal requirement.
Must hold out...
toddybody
Mar 22, 02:57 PM
wait, theres other tablets out there? :rolleyes:
jibjab kalonji
Aug 12, 02:37 AM
hey this is great news. if this piece of crap does in fact come out, i will be really disappointed if it doesn't come with a built-in flashlight, red laser pointer, and classic support.
treblah
Sep 19, 07:37 AM
These kinds of arguments are always lame.
1. People have lifes, not everyone is as much as a geek as you to know exactly how many transistors are in the next Intel processor. That is a code name by the way, Steve is not going to step up and go "Merom Macbook Pros!" on stage. He will look like a Moron.
2. So? Who is Apple to tell me how much of an improvement I should expect from something? When's the last time you seen Ford advertise "05 Ford Falcon! Fuel efficiency lags behind competing models by under 10%, same old reliable Ford Falcon with 2 year old design, still at same old price of $19,999"
If there is even so much as 0.001% of improvement you are gonna see Steve step up onto the keynote like a lappy dog and brag it to sound like it is greater than the 2nd coming of Jesus. That's sales 101 for you.
3. Meroms support 64 bit code. 64 bit code like Leopard (although we don't know for sure), or code like Vista x64 (that is 100% for sure). Sure, you might not mind running things in half arsed modes like some Frankinstein hybrid 32/64 bit system like Tiger is, but some people might actually *gasp* appreciate the ability to judge 64 bit code. Get off your high horse already, if you disagree just keep it to yourself. Not like your arrogant rants contributed anything either.
It's early but what the hay.
My post was not an argument. More of a joking preemption of the usual misspelling and disinformation that is usually spread during any Merom thread. So calm the ***** down.
1. Because Intel calls Conroe and Merom Core 2 Duo, it makes sense to call them by their codenames. Of course Steve isn't going to call it a Merom, and unless they have a new case design, I seriously doubt Steve will call it anything and just let a Tuesday morning PR do the talking.
2. I honestly have no clue as to what you are trying to convey here.
3. Wow, just wow. I'm going to break this down into subsections. a) What exactly do you think 'top to bottom' 64-bit means when Steve calls Leopard that? b) So in your opinion a Universal binary is a 'half-assed Frankenstein hybrid'? And Apple would be better off selling a x86 and a x64 version of Leopard? c) Pretty sure we've had this discussion before, correct me if I'm wrong, but please tell me again why having a "64-bit" processor in a enclosure that doesn't support >4GB of RAM is a big deal. I'll wait. Hint: Because 64 is higher than 32 and that means it's better is not the right answer.
Also, thanks for the laugh.
1. People have lifes, not everyone is as much as a geek as you to know exactly how many transistors are in the next Intel processor. That is a code name by the way, Steve is not going to step up and go "Merom Macbook Pros!" on stage. He will look like a Moron.
2. So? Who is Apple to tell me how much of an improvement I should expect from something? When's the last time you seen Ford advertise "05 Ford Falcon! Fuel efficiency lags behind competing models by under 10%, same old reliable Ford Falcon with 2 year old design, still at same old price of $19,999"
If there is even so much as 0.001% of improvement you are gonna see Steve step up onto the keynote like a lappy dog and brag it to sound like it is greater than the 2nd coming of Jesus. That's sales 101 for you.
3. Meroms support 64 bit code. 64 bit code like Leopard (although we don't know for sure), or code like Vista x64 (that is 100% for sure). Sure, you might not mind running things in half arsed modes like some Frankinstein hybrid 32/64 bit system like Tiger is, but some people might actually *gasp* appreciate the ability to judge 64 bit code. Get off your high horse already, if you disagree just keep it to yourself. Not like your arrogant rants contributed anything either.
It's early but what the hay.
My post was not an argument. More of a joking preemption of the usual misspelling and disinformation that is usually spread during any Merom thread. So calm the ***** down.
1. Because Intel calls Conroe and Merom Core 2 Duo, it makes sense to call them by their codenames. Of course Steve isn't going to call it a Merom, and unless they have a new case design, I seriously doubt Steve will call it anything and just let a Tuesday morning PR do the talking.
2. I honestly have no clue as to what you are trying to convey here.
3. Wow, just wow. I'm going to break this down into subsections. a) What exactly do you think 'top to bottom' 64-bit means when Steve calls Leopard that? b) So in your opinion a Universal binary is a 'half-assed Frankenstein hybrid'? And Apple would be better off selling a x86 and a x64 version of Leopard? c) Pretty sure we've had this discussion before, correct me if I'm wrong, but please tell me again why having a "64-bit" processor in a enclosure that doesn't support >4GB of RAM is a big deal. I'll wait. Hint: Because 64 is higher than 32 and that means it's better is not the right answer.
Also, thanks for the laugh.
HBOC
Apr 8, 01:50 AM
I'll pile on here.
I hate Best Buy.
I miss Circuit City.
I wish there was a Frys in Utah.
There, I feel better. I hope this place suffers. I hate Best Buy.
Fry's is way WORSE than Best Buy. All those tools are on commission, whereas BB they are not, although BOTH locations have equally clueless people. And their prices are not that great, and there is NO sales tax here in Oregon. They won't even match Amazon or Newegg. No one sells for less than those two... Not missing much my man.. and don't get me started on the "build it yourself PC section and TV section...
I hate Best Buy.
I miss Circuit City.
I wish there was a Frys in Utah.
There, I feel better. I hope this place suffers. I hate Best Buy.
Fry's is way WORSE than Best Buy. All those tools are on commission, whereas BB they are not, although BOTH locations have equally clueless people. And their prices are not that great, and there is NO sales tax here in Oregon. They won't even match Amazon or Newegg. No one sells for less than those two... Not missing much my man.. and don't get me started on the "build it yourself PC section and TV section...
dgree03
Apr 6, 03:58 PM
1. Have you seen how those apps "scale" on XOOM? That doesn't make them optimized for tablets, just fit more screen space and even that doesn't work that well.
2. Bull.
YOU apparently havent seen how apps scale first hand. Like i said ill take that over x1, x2 ANY day.
Scale?? Access to each other??
I'm beginning to wonder if you have ever used EITHER iOS or Android.
HAHA, Yes I own a XOOM and a Ipad 2(previously Ipad 1).
YOU apparently havent used either at any length.
My point still stands, I can use less apps to accomplish the same goals on a XOOM than i can on a Ipad.
If you have any other first hand usage that proves me wrong.. go for it.
2. Bull.
YOU apparently havent seen how apps scale first hand. Like i said ill take that over x1, x2 ANY day.
Scale?? Access to each other??
I'm beginning to wonder if you have ever used EITHER iOS or Android.
HAHA, Yes I own a XOOM and a Ipad 2(previously Ipad 1).
YOU apparently havent used either at any length.
My point still stands, I can use less apps to accomplish the same goals on a XOOM than i can on a Ipad.
If you have any other first hand usage that proves me wrong.. go for it.
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 09:43 AM
As for your theoretical 24GHz processor, such a thing is simply not possible with today's technology.
Just stating 'I knew that' I just used it as an example. Chundles gets confused easily so I have to make things simple. Hi Chundles :D
Just stating 'I knew that' I just used it as an example. Chundles gets confused easily so I have to make things simple. Hi Chundles :D
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:07 AM
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.
The functions inside FCP do not need the OS support. Apple can install private frameworks, and they do it already, for their own applications. So i think they will support SL.
AV Foundation brings back QT7-features to QTX. Apple uses AV Foundation in the new QTX-player of Lion.
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.
The functions inside FCP do not need the OS support. Apple can install private frameworks, and they do it already, for their own applications. So i think they will support SL.
AV Foundation brings back QT7-features to QTX. Apple uses AV Foundation in the new QTX-player of Lion.
safe4mx
Apr 7, 11:57 PM
Well that's pretty childish of both parties. :rolleyes:
KnightWRX
Apr 8, 08:26 PM
Intel isn't forcing anything. Mac Book pro's are using Sandy Bridge AND have a separate graphics chipset. :rolleyes:
Again, let me be a broken record :
Intel forced nVidia out of the chipset business, making the choice of IGPs for OEMs be Intel or Intel. Now we're back to square one, where IGP = suck. When nVidia made IGPs, at least they made half-decent ones.
The 320m is an IGP, same as the Intel stuff. Except it doesn't suck.
Again, let me be a broken record :
Intel forced nVidia out of the chipset business, making the choice of IGPs for OEMs be Intel or Intel. Now we're back to square one, where IGP = suck. When nVidia made IGPs, at least they made half-decent ones.
The 320m is an IGP, same as the Intel stuff. Except it doesn't suck.
AidenShaw
Jul 14, 11:22 PM
top heavy is just idiotic.
Has anyone noticed that three or four disk drives actually weigh a lot more than a power supply?
Especially a modern power supply! (Those Apple IIfx supplies had a lot of iron - but today a 600watt supply is pretty light.)
Get a life (and an IEC 90° cord) and forget whining about power supply top or bottom.
Worrying about "Top heavy" is simply nonsense - I have top PS systems and bottom PS systems, and "top heaviness" has never been an issue - the centre of gravity of my systems is usually determined by the number, capacity, and location of the disks.
Has anyone noticed that three or four disk drives actually weigh a lot more than a power supply?
Especially a modern power supply! (Those Apple IIfx supplies had a lot of iron - but today a 600watt supply is pretty light.)
Get a life (and an IEC 90° cord) and forget whining about power supply top or bottom.
Worrying about "Top heavy" is simply nonsense - I have top PS systems and bottom PS systems, and "top heaviness" has never been an issue - the centre of gravity of my systems is usually determined by the number, capacity, and location of the disks.
aohus
Apr 19, 02:35 PM
WRONG. A lot of modern GUI elements are INVENTED by Apple:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
Apple may face special problems because of admissions made by its chairman, John Sculley, in his 1987 book, ''Odyssey,'' a chronicle of his split with Apple's co-founder, Steven P. Jobs. ''Much of the Macintosh technology wasn't invented in the building,'' he wrote. ''Indeed, the Mac, like the Lisa before it, was largely a conduit for technology developed'' at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center.
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
Apple may face special problems because of admissions made by its chairman, John Sculley, in his 1987 book, ''Odyssey,'' a chronicle of his split with Apple's co-founder, Steven P. Jobs. ''Much of the Macintosh technology wasn't invented in the building,'' he wrote. ''Indeed, the Mac, like the Lisa before it, was largely a conduit for technology developed'' at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center.
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 12:02 PM
Pull your fingers out of your ears (or in this case your eyes) fivepoint, and pay attention to our responses. They would answer your question/accusation/calumny.
macgeek2005
Aug 19, 06:08 PM
I'm sure you know this. But just a reminder that you would be dealing with an extremely fragile and tricky upgrade process that could destroy your motherboard or fry the processor without the latest cooling system from Apple. Just my own caution against attempting this. Not worth the risk I think. There will be a better video card with the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as well as other changes to the system fixing bugs discovered between now and then. Too many changes in the works for me to want to fool with such a complex system.
You make me mad you know that? All over the boards I see your posts with your weird avatar and your extremely critical opinions on everything. Why don't you wait until 2010 and get a 32 core system from intel. Why don't you wait until nobody uses computers anymore. This is just a phase in the history of the world. There will be something beyond computers in another few hundred years. Why buy a computer if it'll be obsolete at some point?
Professional users are out there using G5 towers and even G4's. They're using MacBook Pro's, which are much less powerfull than the Quad Mac Pro right now. I mean, what's your problem? Will there ever be a computer good enough for you?
There are people like you out there, but i've never met a case as extreme as you. I mean, you even went as far as to say that theres very little you can do with 4 cores. Where the **** did you pull that from? Actually, don't answer that question.
I think that you're secretly some evil worker from microsoft trying to stall people from buying Mac Pro's!
If everyone could all of a sudden comprehend exactly how powerful the current machines are, anyone who was thinking of buying one, would buy one.
But you're out here with your "Clovertown is better" and your "Bugs must be worked out" and your this and your that.
You know what? I have three Rev. A iMac Core Duo's in my house, and not a single one of them has had a bug, a crash, a freeze, or a problem of any sort. Rev. A.
HMMM. Maybe Apple does know how to do Rev. A. Just sometimes? Maybe? Perhaps?
Especially with their Quad Xeon 64 Bit Workstation which they've been working on for over a year?
Do you realise that in the procces of making these computers they work out the bugs themselves? They use the computers, and find all the bugs possible, and work them out?
What do you think all those apple workers have been doing for the last year and a half, if not working out bugs on their machines?
For anyone out there who has been needlessly influenced by this guy to wait for a system that will only be outdated by the one that will come after it, please uninfluence yourself, and buy the stupid computer that you want, when you want it.
Jeeshh!!
You make me mad you know that? All over the boards I see your posts with your weird avatar and your extremely critical opinions on everything. Why don't you wait until 2010 and get a 32 core system from intel. Why don't you wait until nobody uses computers anymore. This is just a phase in the history of the world. There will be something beyond computers in another few hundred years. Why buy a computer if it'll be obsolete at some point?
Professional users are out there using G5 towers and even G4's. They're using MacBook Pro's, which are much less powerfull than the Quad Mac Pro right now. I mean, what's your problem? Will there ever be a computer good enough for you?
There are people like you out there, but i've never met a case as extreme as you. I mean, you even went as far as to say that theres very little you can do with 4 cores. Where the **** did you pull that from? Actually, don't answer that question.
I think that you're secretly some evil worker from microsoft trying to stall people from buying Mac Pro's!
If everyone could all of a sudden comprehend exactly how powerful the current machines are, anyone who was thinking of buying one, would buy one.
But you're out here with your "Clovertown is better" and your "Bugs must be worked out" and your this and your that.
You know what? I have three Rev. A iMac Core Duo's in my house, and not a single one of them has had a bug, a crash, a freeze, or a problem of any sort. Rev. A.
HMMM. Maybe Apple does know how to do Rev. A. Just sometimes? Maybe? Perhaps?
Especially with their Quad Xeon 64 Bit Workstation which they've been working on for over a year?
Do you realise that in the procces of making these computers they work out the bugs themselves? They use the computers, and find all the bugs possible, and work them out?
What do you think all those apple workers have been doing for the last year and a half, if not working out bugs on their machines?
For anyone out there who has been needlessly influenced by this guy to wait for a system that will only be outdated by the one that will come after it, please uninfluence yourself, and buy the stupid computer that you want, when you want it.
Jeeshh!!
Cory Bauer
Apr 12, 07:24 PM
The Final Cut page has already been updated.
No, it hasn't.
No, it hasn't.
jaxstate
Aug 11, 02:41 PM
You guys are looking about a $500.00 phone...atleast.
I would add
I would add
No comments:
Post a Comment